ANWARI BASAVARAJ PATIL Vs. SIDDARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal raises the question whether S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to a recrimination notice given under S. 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court has held that it does not. His view is questioned by the returned candidate (first respondent in the election petition) before us.

(3.) The first respondent in the Election Petition who shall hereinafter be referred to as "appellant", was declared elected from Koppal parliamentary constituency during the general elections held for the 10th Lok Sabha. He contested on the Congress(1) ticket. The election-petitioner, referred to hereinafter as "the first respondent" had also contested from the said constituency on the ticket of Janata Dal. Having lost the election, the first respondent filed an election petition No. 8 of 1991 for a declaration that the election of the appellant from the said parliamentary constituency was void and for a further declaration that he himself has been duly elected therefrom. Since the appellant and some other respondents to the election petition could not be served in the ordinary course, the High Court directed publication of notice in a Kannada Daily Newspaper. It was so published on 4-11-1991 fixing the date of appearance of the respondents on 25-11-1991. The appellant (first respondent in the election petition) appeared before the High Court on 4-11-1991 and sought time for filing his written statement which he did on 6-11-1992. Thereafter, on 21-1-1992 he submitted the recrimination notice under S. 97 of the Act. By the said notice, the appellant expressed his intention to give evidence to prove that the election of the first respondent would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election. Along with the recrimination notice he filed an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act requesting the High Court to condone the delay in filing the same for the reasons stated therein. According to the proviso to S.97(1), notice of such intention should have been given to the High Court "within 14 days from the date of commencement of trial". Admittedly, the appellant gave notice under S.97(1) beyond the period of 14 days and hence the application under S. 5.