G.S. Singhvi, J. - Petitioner No. 1, and respondent No. 1, were candidates for election to 1-Kalka Assembly Constituency in the general elections held for the Haryana Legislative Assembly in April, 1996. The votes were polled on 27.4.1996 and after completion of counting, respondent No. 1 was declared elected on 9.5.1996 by margin of 20629 votes (petitioner No. 1 is shown to have polled 34300 votes as against 54929 polled by respondent No. 1).

2. Petitioner No. 1, and petitioner No. 2 who claims to be an elector of 1- Kalka Legislative Assembly jointly presented this petition on 1.7.1996 i.e. after more than 45 days of the declaration of result. After scrutiny of the petition, registry of the High Court reported the following defects :-

1. As per provisions contained in section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election petition is to be filed within 45 days from the date of the declaration of the result. The result in this case was declared on 9.5.1996 and the election petition has been filed on 53rd day and the same is, therefore, time-barred.

2. Allegations of corrupt practice have been made in the petition, but the affidavit in the prescribed form as required by section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has not been filed. Instead, an affidavit of a general nature verifying all the contents of the election petition has been filed."

3. The registry proposed that the petition be laid before Honble designated Judge on 16.8.1996 as provided under Rule 14(b), Chapter 4 GG, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume-V. On 16.8.1996, the case was listed before Honble M.L. Koul, J., who adjourned it to 20.8.1996. On the next date, Koul, J. passed the following order :-

"Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. R.C. Dimri, Advocate.

Heard Mr. Bali with regard to the objections raised by the Registry stating that the petitioner has not filed the election petition within the statutory period of limitation of 45 days as provided under the Act, rather the election petition has been filed on the 53rd day and hence the matter is time-barred.

4. Mr. Bali argued that in no manner the delay has been caused in the filing of the election petition for the fact that the courts were closed in the month of June, 1996 and soon after the courts re-opened, it was filed on 1.7.1996 itself. In this regard he referred to 1994 Supplementary (1) Supreme Court Cases 441 and contended that their Lordships have held that the election petition is maintainable once the time of limitation has expired during the vacations and the petition has been filed soon after the court re-opened.

5. Having regard to authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court as mentioned above the delay in filing the election petition is condoned.

6. Mr. Bali has undertaken that he will file an affidavit with regard to the corrupt practice as per Section 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, within 10 days. Hence, issue notice of motion to the other side for 30.9.1996."

7. It appears that the petition was not listed before the Court on 30.9.1996. Instead, it was listed on 3.10.1996. On that date, Koul, J. directed that the case be listed before some other Bench after seeking approval of Honble the Chief Justice and on 9.10.1996, Honble the Chief Justice directed the listing of this petition before this Bench.

8. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, one of the many objections raised to the maintainability of the election petition is the bar of limitation. Respondent No. 1 has prayed that the election petition be dismissed at the threshold in view of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act).

9. Shri J.K. Sibal, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 argued that in view of the mandate of Section 86(1) of the Act, the election petition should be dismissed because it was filed after the expiry of limitation of 45 days specified in Section 81(1). He submitted that the limitation of