S.K. Mal Lodha, J.—By this order, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (No. XXXVI of 1963) (for short the Act) read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported by the affidavit of Shri Virdhichand Jain, Advocate filed on behalf of the election-petitioner on October 22, 1980 will be disposed of.

2. The election-petitioner filed the election petition under Ss. 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) on July 16. 1980 with a prayer that the election of the respondent may be declared void. The respondent filed the written statement on September 20, 1980 contesting the election petition Rejoinder to the reply was filed on October 7, 1980 Issues were framed on October 10. 1980 and it was ordered that the parties shall file the list of witnesses within 7 days from that day. The respondent filed the list of the witnesses on October 13, 1980. This list was within the time fixed by the Court. The election-petitioner, however, filed the list of witnesses along with an application under S. 5 of the Act read with S. 151 C.P.C. on October 22,1980 praying therein that the delay caused in filing the list of witnesses may be condoned and the list of witnesses may be taken on record and that a direction for summoning the witnesses may be made. It may be mentioned that October 17, 1980 to October 20, 1980 were holidays and the Court was closed. No written reply to the application was filed on behalf of the respondent.

3. I have heard Mr. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the election-petitioner and Mr R.C. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the election-petitioner submitted that under S.5 of the Act, delay caused in not filing the list of witnesses within 7 days as ordered by this Court on October 10, 1980 may be condoned, for. the reasons given in the application which is supported by the affidavit of Shri Virdhi Chand Jain, Advocate, constitute sufficient cause. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent argued that S. 5 of the Act cannot be invoked in this case and that the period of 7 days provided in r. 745-M of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (for short the Rules, hereinafter) cannot be extended. It was also submitted that even if S.5 of the Act is held to be applicable, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the reasons narrated by the election-petitioner in the application under S.5 of the Act read with S. 151 C.P.C. are not adequate to hold that there was sufficient cause as required by S.5 of the Act for condoning the delay.

5. I have bestowed my most careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. At this juncture, it will be useful to consider the relevant provisions of the Act, the Act of 1951 and the Rules.

7. Section 5 of the Act lays down that an application to which the section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. According to S.2 (j) of the Act period of limitation means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule appended to the Act and the "prescribed period" means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 29 of the Act deal with Savings and sub-section (2) of S.29 reads as under :

"S. 29(2). Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special

Click Here to Read the rest of this document