SURAJMAL NARAYANJI Vs. SUNDERLAL MANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the Election Tribunal, Ratlam, in Election Petition No. 210 of 1962.

(2.) PETITIONER Surajmal s /o Narayanji Tugnawat is a resident of the village Hatunia. He was a Congress Party candidate for the Manasa Assembly Constituency. Respondent No. 1 Sundarlal was also a candidate who stood on behalf of Jan Sangh. Respondent No. 2 Virendrasingh was also one of the candidates who had filed his nomination paper along with two others namely Radheshyam and Ramchandra Porwal. The last mentioned two candidates withdrew their candidature before the prescribed time of withdrawal. The poll took place on 21-2-1962 and respondent No. 1 Sundarlal Mannalal Patwa was declared elected to the Manasa Assembly seat on the ground of his having obtained majority of votes. The petitioner in his petition attributed corrupt practices to respon-dent No. 1 for securing his success at the polls. The alleged corrupt practices, which are material for the purpose of the present appeal, can be put in five categories:-

(3.) NOW proviso to section 116-A which confers powers on the High Court to entertain an appeal after the expiry of period of 30 days provided by clause (3) of the section if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. In computing the period of limitation for filing appeal time required in obtaining copy of the judgment under appeal is liable to be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act. It is therefore necessary to consider whether there is sufficient cause for the appellant for not preferring appeal within the period allowed by law. It is not disputed that in case the time requisite for obtaining copy of the judgment appealed against as permitted by section 12 of the Limitation Act is computed from the date of the application for copy namely 20-11-1962 up to the date of delivery of the copy to the appellant namely 3-12-1962 the appeal would be just within limitation. On the other hand if notice is taken of the fact as appears from the certified copy of the copying register that the appellant was required to deposit full copying charges by 23-11-1962 but he actually deposited them on 3-12-1962 and obtained the copy on the same day and no allowance is given to him in respect of the period from 24.11-1962 to 2-12-1962 the appeal would be barred by time.