The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to election petitions under the U.P. Municipalities Act, as governed by special procedural laws.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri J. N. Mathur Senior Advocate assisted by Sri MuditAgarwal Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/opposite parties no.1 and 2, Dr. L. P. Mishra, Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad and Sri Ayush Chaudhary Advocates, the learned counsel for the oppositeparty no.4 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 04.11.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.-I), Ambedkar Nagar in Election Petition No.4 of 2023, whereby an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing election petition has been allowed, the delay in filing the election petition has been condoned and the preliminary issue that the election petition was barred bythe prescribed period of limitation, has been decided in the negative. Thereafter the election petition itself has been allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 15.11.2025 and the petitioner has challenged the validity of that judgment also.

3. As a purely legal issue is involved in this petition as to whether the delay in filing an Election Petition under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties stated that they would not file any counter affidavit in the matter and they have opposed the Petition by advancing oral submissions.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the elections conducted for the office of Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Ashrafpur Kichhauncha, the petitioner was one of the candidates. The polling was held on 11.05.2023 and result was declared on 13.05.2023, in which the petitioner was declared as the returned candidate and the opposite party no.4 stood at the fourth position.

5. On 18.07.2023 the opposite party no.4 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement in response to the election petition inter alia pleading that the election result was declared on 13.05.2023 in presence of the election petitioner and he did not raise any objection and did not submit any representation alleging any irregularity/illegality committed in the election process. The election petition filed on 18.07.2023 is barred by the period of limitation as Section 20 of the Municipalities Act, 1916 provides that an election petition shall be presented within 30 days after the day on which the result of the election is announced.

6. On 04.09.2025 the petitioner filed an application requesting that the plea that the election petition is time-barred, gives rise to a preliminary issue affecting the maintainability of the petition, which should be framed and decided first.

7. On 22.09.2025, the opposite party no.4/election petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stating that the result of the election was declared on 13.05.2023, as per section 20 (1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, an election petition ought to have been filed within 30 days, there was a vacation in the courts from 01.06.2023 to 30.06.2023, and the election petition could have been submitted on 01.07.2023, but the election petition could not be filed within the prescribed limitation period as the election petitioner got some important info