TAPASWINI MEHER Vs. PREMASILA BAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is opposite party No.1 in the Election Petition, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 25.09.2012 passed under Annexure-5 by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Loisingha (hereinafter referred to as 'Election Tribunal') in Election Dispute Case No.3 of 2012 rejecting application of the petitioner filed under Order XIV, Rule 2, CPC to frame and record preliminary issue on the point of limitation on the ground that the said order is illegal, arbitrary, mechanical with non-application of judicial mind and against the settled principle of law.

(2.) Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that in Panchayat Election, 2012 she was declared elected as Sarapanch of Agalpur Grama Panchayat under Agalpur (Duduka) Block on 24.02.2012. The election-petitioner filed the Election Petition under Section 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'GP Act') before the Election Tribunal challenging election of writ petitioner to the office of Sarapanch, Agalpur Grama Panchayat as null and void and declaring her as Sarapanch of the said Grama Panchayat. Cause of action arose on 24.02.2012 when the election of opposite party No.1-petitioner to the office of Sarapanch of Agalpur Grama Panchayat was declared and published under Section 15 of the G.P. Act. The election petitioner has verified and sworn an affidavit on 02.08.2012 (which as per the copy of the Election Petition No.3 of 2012 is 12.03.2012). On receiving notice, petitioner-opposite party No.1 filed her objection, inter alia, stating that the election petition was not within the time and the same is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 31(1) of GP Act. After issues were framed, opposite party No.1-petitioner filed a petition under Order XIV, Rule 2(2), CPC stating that the election petition was filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 31(1) of GP Act. Therefore, a prayer was made to frame preliminary issue on the point of limitation.

(3.) After hearing both parties, the learned Election Tribunal dismissed the application of opposite party No.1-petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.