ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA Vs. RASHPAUL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this case was taken up on 06.03.2015, the plea of petitioner was that though the instant petition came to be filed in February, 2009, yet the respondents have failed to file written statement despite lapse of so many years. He, thus, urged that at this stage allowing further extension for filing written statement is barred by the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, Mr. Wazir, learned senior counsel stated that the written statement has already been prepared and is lying with him but the same could not be filed in view of order dated 03.07.2010 of this Court vide which the parties were directed to first address on the issue whether this Court has the inherent power to extend the time for filing objections. He further stated that the issue could not be addressed as the matter was being adjourned at the request of either of the parties. The parties were accordingly allowed to address the issue in the light of order dated 03.07.2010 and the matter was reserved for orders.

(2.) PETITIONER vehemently argued that in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC the respondents had to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. If they fail to file the same within the aforesaid period, further 60 days time can be extended; meaning thereby after 90 days from the date of service of summons the respondents are barred from filing the written statement. Thus, he vehemently argued that this Court cannot grant further extension of time for filing the written statement, that too at this belated stage. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case Om Parkash Gupta v. Union of India,, 2000 (4) CPSC 735. He also relied upon a judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case Mohinder Singh v. Sardool Singh, : 2005 (2) Civ. C.R. 17 (P & H).

(3.) SECTION 95 of the Act stipulates that the election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the provisions applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 95 is not mandatory in nature to apply the provisions contained in the CPC in toto.