Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Suman Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Manisha Devi and others - Respondents
Civil Revision No.1120 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-08-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vikas Lochab, Mr. Kapil Bansal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation – Exclusion of Time – The word "other cause of a like nature" cannot be given restricted meaning
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963, S.14 – Exclusion of Time – Section 14 not only provides for civil proceedings filed before the court which does not have jurisdiction but also provide for "other cause of a like nature" – The word "other cause of a like nature" cannot be given restricted meaning – In a given case, where the previous suit was filed, before a competent Court but there was some defect, the Court can certainly allow the suit to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one – In such a situation, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be extended. (Para 15)
(B) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.176 – Election Petition – Delay in filing – Exclusion of Time – Objection was raised that the election petition has not been presented personally as required by law – Permission granted to withdraw the petition and file the fresh-one – S.14(13) of Limitation Act would be applicable – Fresh Petition held to be with limitation – Limitation Act, 1963, S.14. (Para 15)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Petitioner is in revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-13), passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul.
2. Election for members of District Council, Mahendergarh was held on 28.01.2016. Petitioner-herein was elected, whereas respondent herein i.e. Manisha Devi was declared defeated.
3. Manisha Devi filed a petition, under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, seeking cancellation of election of Ward No.18, District Council, Mahendergarh and sought re-election.
4. Under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, election petition is filed under Section 176 of the Act, which is extracted as under:-
“176. Determination of validity of election enquiry by judge and procedure(1) If the validity of any election of a member of a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chairman or Vice-Chairman, President or Vice- President of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad respectively is brought in question by any person contesting the election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question relates, such person may at any time within thirty days after the date of the declaration of results of the election , present an election petition to the civil court having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held, for the determination of such question.
(2) A petitioner shall not join as respondent to his election petition except the following persons :—
(a) where the petitioner in addition to challenging the validity of the election of all or any of the returned candidates claims a further relief that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner and where no such further relief is claimed, all the returned candidates ;
(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practices are made in the election petition.
(3) All election petitions received under sub-section (1) in which the validity of the election of members to represent the same electoral division is in question, shall be heard by the same civil court.
(4) (a) If on the holding such inquiry the civil court finds that a candidate has, for the purpose of election committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (5) he shall set aside the election and declare the candidate disqualified for the purpose of election and fresh election may be held.
2(aa) If on holding such enquiry the Civil Court finds that-
(i) on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified to be elected;
(ii) any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(iii) the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination or by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with or violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India or of this Act, or any rules or orders made under this Act, election of such returned candidate shall be set aside and fresh election may be held.]
(b) If, in any case to which 2[clause (a) or clause (aa) does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the court shall after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the largest number of valid votes in his favour, to have been duty elected :
Provided that after such computation, if any, equality of votes is found to exist between any candidate and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the candidate to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been receiv
