LexHUKUMDEV NARAIN YADAV versus LALIT NARAIN MISHRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 0 E F G H 31 HUKUMDEV NARAIN YADA V v. LALIT NARAIN MISHRA December 21, 1973 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S. N. DWIVEDI AND P. K. GosWAMF, JJ.J Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951} Ss. 81 and 86-Presemation of election petition beyond prescrib~d period of limitation- Wlu!IIJer court lias powe~: 10 condo11e delay. Limitation Act, (36 of 1963), Ss. 4, 5 and 29 (2) Whether delay in filillg election petition cat/ be comloned under s. 5-Applicahility of sectio11 to electimt pelitions- Samrday last day of limitation-Filing 011 next ll.fonday-If within limitation. Under s. 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court is given jurisdiction to try election petitions. Section 81 prescribes the period of 45 days from the d11te of the election of a returned candidate as the period within which an election petition calling in question any election on one or more of the grounds specified in s. JOO (I} or s. 101 has to be presented. If the provisions of s. 81 are not complied with, s. 86 requires that the High Court shall dismiss tile petition. Rules 6 and 7 of the Election Rules framed by the Patna High Court pr,~ vided, (i) that the petition must, first, be presented to the Stamp Reporter· (ii) The Stamp Reporter has to certify thereon whether it is in time and in con: formity with the requirements of the Act and .the rules in that behalf or is defective· (iii) the petition should be returned to the petitioner for removing the defects if any and for formal presontation to the judge in open Court after removing the defects; (iv) if the judge who is designated to entertain and try dection petitions is absent the petition shall be presented before the Bench hearing civil applications and motions; and (v) the date of presentatiol'! before the Judge or Bench, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the date of the filing of the election petition for pur- poses of limitation. In the present case, the election petition was filed on Monday instead of on the previous Saturday which was the last day of limitation, and the High Court dis- missed the petition as time-barred. In appeal to this Court, on the questions: (I) Is the Court closed on Saturday because Judges do not sit, and (2) by virtue of s. 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 are the provisions of ss. 4 to 24 and especially s. 5 of the Limitation Act applicabl~ to election petitions, so that, the petitioner could show sufficient cause for not filing tile petition within time, - HELD: (I) (a) Under s. 4 of the Limitation Act, it is provided that where the prescribed period for. any suit, appe~l l!' app/icafio~t e~pires on a day when the court is closed, the suJt, appeal or apphcatwn may be mstrtuted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens. Even if s. 4 of the f.-imitation Act docs not apply to election petitions s. 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would certainly apply to election .Petitions. Under both the pr~visions where th~ prescribed period of limitation exp1res on a day when the Court 1s closed the petJtJon could be tiled on a day when the court next reopens. But a court is not closed notwithstanding the fact that judges do not sit on any day if otherwise the court is open on that day. £34H; 35C-F] H. H. Raja Harindu Singh v. S. Karn.ail Singh [1957] S.C.R., 208, Laclnnl'slnrar Prasad Shukul v. Gird/1ari La! Cllaudlwry, I. L. R. 19 Pat. 123, Naclz~vappa Mudaii and others v. Ayyasami Ayyar, I. L. R. (1882) 5 Mad, 189 at 192, In r~ Thokklldubi- vya11u Immaniyelu and Others, (1948) I M. L. J. 49, Dwarka Prasutl a11d anotlter v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1954 Pat. 384 and Sajjau Sintll muf another v. Bhogilal Pandya A. I. R. 1958 Raj. 307, referred to. (b) Rules 6 and 7 of the Elections Rules of the Patna High Court should be read subject tor. 24 of the same Rules; and so read, in s0 far as they are not inconsistent with the election ~ules, tile Patna High Court Rules shall upply mutatis mutandis ::-:::: SUPREME coURT REPOR !S [ 19741 3 s.c.n. 32 · 26 of the Patna High Court Rules provides for th A to all el~tion petitions. R~~~m of appeal or ~pplicatioo to t!te Registrar whc~ resentauon of the memo~ certificatton by fum for presentation to a Bench 00 ~0 Bench is sitting, aodo~ ~~hich the Den~~ is sitting. ~ule 26 applies to an etC(:. the ned subsequent ~3 '1' not incOnsistent with r. 7, EIC:ChOn .R\IIes. Rule 7 does, tioD petition also an _Is en where a Judg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.