LexANWARI BASAWARAJ PATIL AND ORS. versus SIDDARAMAIAH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A_ ANWAR! BASAWARAJ PATIL AND ORS. A v. SIDDARAMAIAH AND ORS. JANUARY 27, 1993 [KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] B Representation of the People Ac4 1951 : Section 97-Recrimination notice-Delay in filing of-Whether Section . 5 of the Limitation Ac4 1963 applicable. c Limitation Ac4 1963: Section 5-Whether applicable to recrimination notice under Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1951. The first respondent, a defeated candidate, filed an election petition D before the High Court for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void and that he himself had been duly el"CCted. Since the notice could not be served on the appellant, and some other respondents in the ordinary course, it was published in a vernacular dally newspaper, as directed by the High Court, fixing the date of appearance of the respondents therein. E The appellant appeared before the High Court on the date of publication of the notice and sought time for filing the written. statement and after doing so submitted a recrimination notice under Section 97 of the Repre- sentation of People Act, 1951. Along with the recrimination notice be filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requesting the High F Court to condone the delay in filing the same, since the appellant had given ~· notice beyond the period of 14 days from the date of commencement of trial, prescribed under the proviso to Section 97 ( l). _I The High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to a recrimination notice. G Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal, by special leave, before this Court. It was contended that by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, all the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) of the Act applied to the proceedings under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, lnclnding the recrimination notice under Section 97. H 313 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, this Court, B c D E F G HELD : 1.1. There is no provision in the Representation of People Act, 1951 making all or any of the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the Act. (318A] 1.2. The Act equates a recrimination notice to an election petition. The language of Section 97 makes the said fact abundantly clear. It provides that returned candidates or any other party may give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate would have been void if be had been the returned candidate and a petition bad been presented calling in question his election. The proviso to sub-section (1) applies the provisions of Sections 117 and 118 to such a recrimination notice. For non-compliance with the requirement of Section 117 an election petition is liable to be dismissed by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 86. Sub-section (2) of Section 97 further provides that the notice referred to in sub-section (1) should be accompanied by the statemtnt and particulars as required by Section 83 in the case of an election petition and should be signed and verified in like manner. [319C-E] 1.3. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 97 which requires such a notice to be given to the High Court within 14 days of the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the High Court to answer the claim or claims (reading the definition of 'commencement of trial' into it) has also a particular meaning and object behind it. The idea is that the recrimina· lion notice, if any, should be filed at the earliest possible time so that both the election petition and the recrimination notice are tried at the same time. [319F) The recrimination notice is thus comparable to an election petition. Ir Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the filing of an election petltinn, it does not equally apply to the filing of the recrimination notice. [319G] H.N Yadav v. L.N. Misra, (1974] 3 S.C.R. 31, relied on. V.C. Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel and Ors., (1964] 6 S.C.R. 129, dlstlngnlsbed. Blwgilal Pandya v. Maharawal Laxman Singh, AIR 1968 Rajasthan H 145, Bhakti Bh. Monda/ v. Khagendra K. Bandhopandhya, 1968 Calcutta ANWAR! PATIL v. SIDDARAMAIAH [REDDY, J.] 69, overruled. 315 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 313 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1992 of the Karnataka High Court ii! J>lection Petition No. 8 of 1991. · P .N. Misra for the Appellants. R.N. Narasimha Murthy, E.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.