Alok Singh, J.

1. These are five revision petitions involving same questions of law and facts, hence, all are being disposed of with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, by this common order.

2. In the present petition, order impugned is dated 23.2.2010 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Nawanshahr. Brief facts of the present case are that for the Municipal Committee, Nawanshahr, election was held on 30.6.2008 and the result was declared on the same day; respondent No.3 herein filed a writ petition being CWP No. 14592 of 2008 before this Court challenging the election and its result dated 30.6.2008; a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2008, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner therein to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal with further direction that if election petition is filed, it shall be decided expeditiously; against the order dated 20.8.2008, a review application was moved by the petitioner herein/returned candidate, however, same was also rejected; order dated 20.8.2008 was challenged before the Honble Apex Court in SLP No.27853- 27854 of 2008; the Honble Apex Court vide order dated 1.12.2008 dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal with permission to the petitioner(s) herein to raise all questions of facts and/or law as permissible under the law before the Election Tribunal.

3. An election petition was filed by the respondent No.3 herein before the Election Tribunal on 3.9.2008 with certain defects. However, defects were removed on 24.9,2009. Alongwith the election petition, an application for condonation of delay was also moved by respondent No.3 which was allowed by the Election Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.2.2010.

4. Learned Election Tribunal in the impugned order dated 23.2.2010 has held that although provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable, however, in view of the filing of the writ petition prior to filing of the election petition and in view of the order passed by this Court directing the petitioner therein to file election petition and the direction that petition shall be disposed of on merit, delay in filing the election petition is condoned.

5. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Election Tribunal dated 23.2.2010, returned candidates/petitioners herein have filed present revision petitions.

6. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) vehemently argued that election petition is filed under Section 76(1) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for brevity Act, 1994) challenging the election of the Municipal Committee. He further states that as per Section 76(1) of the Act, 1994, election petition is to be filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. He further states that Section 80 of the Act, 1994 further provides that if petition is not filed in accordance with Section 76 of the Act, 1994, the same shall be dismissed. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Counsel for the petitionees) while taking shelter of Section 76(1) and Section 80 of the Act, 1994 vehemently argued that if petition is not filed within 45 days from the date of election of returned candidate, Tribunal has no other option except to dismiss it in accordance with Section 80 of the Act, 1994. He further states that in view of Section 80 of the Act, 1994, limitation Act shall not be applicable in the matter of the election petitions filed under Section 76 of the Act. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the matter of Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal and others, (1999)8 Supreme Court Cases 532 and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Joginder Singh v. Baldeep Singh and other, (2010-1) 157 PLR 769.

7. Mr. R.P. Dhir, learned Counsel for respondent No.3/election petitioner argued that since this Court while disposing writ petitions filed by the election petitioner vide order