ORDER :

1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant herein/returned candidate under Section 441-F (2) of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1956”) against the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Raipur in Election Petition No. 3/2015 by which his election on the post of Councillor of Ward No. 34 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) Municipal Corporation Raipur held on 04.01.2015 has been set aside and non-applicant/respondent No. 1 herein has been declared elected on the said post. The question of law that emanates for consideration in this civil revision as under:

“Whether the Election Tribunal constituted under Section 441(2) of the Act of 1956, has power and jurisdiction to condone the delay in presenting the Election Petition under Section 441(3)(i) of the Act of 1956?”

Brief facts:

2. The applicant herein was declared elected as Councillor from Ward No. 34 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) of Municipal Corporation Raipur, on 04.01.2015. Election Petitioner/ non-applicant No. 1 preferred an election petition under Section 441 (2) of the Act of 1956, before the Election Tribunal (Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction) on 24.02.2015. The said election petition presented by non-applicant No. 1 herein ought to have been preferred within 30 days from the date on which result of election was declared i.e. 04.01.2015 by virtue of provision contained under Section 441(3)(i) of the Act of 1956, but non-applicant No. 1 preferred election petition on 24.02.2015 with a delay of 22 days. Non-applicant No. 1 also preferred an application for condoning the delay in presenting the election petition which was registered as I.A. No. 1 by the learned District Judge, Raipur. The said I.A. No. 1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1963”) was considered by the learned District Judge, Raipur on 27.02.2015 and finding sufficient cause for delay of 22 days in presenting the election petition, application was allowed and delay in filing the election petition was condoned and notices were issued to the returned candidate/applicant herein and other candidates.

3. The applicant herein being a returned candidate while appearing before the Election Tribunal on 23.07.2015 filed an I.A. No. 2, application under Section 441 of the Act of 1956, for dismissing the election petition as it was barred by 22 days. The said I.A. No. 2 was considered by the learned District Judge on 23.07.2015 and it was rejected holding that the delay in presenting the election petition has already been condoned by order dated 27.02.2015. After full-fledged trial election of the applicant herein was declared void by the learned District Judge by order dated 05.02.2019 and non-applicant No. 1 has been declared elected candidate of Ward No. 34 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) of Municipal Corporation Raipur.

4. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved against the impugned order, the applicant/returned candidate has preferred this civil revision under Section 441-F (2) of the Act of 1956. One of the ground of challenge raised by the applicant in this civil revision is that delay of 22 days in presenting election petition could not have been condoned by the learned District Judge as the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963, is inapplicable in presenting election petition under Section 441(2) of the Act of 1956. This Court by order dated 26.02.2019 stayed the effect and operation of order dated 05.02.02019 subject to condition mentioned in the order dated 26.02.2019.

Submissions:

5. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, would make a solitary submission that the learned District Judge committed a grave legal error in condoning the delay of 22 days in presenting the election petition as by virtue of Section 441(3)(i) of the Act, 1956, presentation of election petition within 30 days from the date on which result of election was declared is mandatory and in the