DROPADI Vs. CIVIL JUDGE SR DIV GANGAPUR CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case was finally heard with the consent of the parties as the only point involved is a legal point as to whether the period for obtaining certified copy of the declaration of the election result could be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short `the Act'), for the purpose of filing election petition.

(2.) THE respondent No. 4 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner. This was filed one day beyond the period of thirty days prescribed under the Act. It was contended by the election petitioner that she had filed the election petition within thirty days from the date of obtaining copy of the declaration of the election result. THE point raised was as to whether the period spent in obtaining copy of the declaration of the election result could be excluded under Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) before whom the election petition is pending, heard the parties and held that the election petition was not time barred as it was filed within one months of obtaining copy of the result of the declaration. Actually, it has been held by the learned Civil Judge that the election petition had been filed within time and at the same time, he has held that the period spent in obtaining copy of the declaration of result of election deserved to be condoned. THE petitioner challenges the action of entertaining the election petition by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that it was a time barred petition and could not have been entertained. THE contention of the petitioner is that Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act has no application to the case. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order.

(3.) SUB-Sec. (1) of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act requires that the date from which the period of limitation is to be counted for filing a suit, appeal or application, has to be excluded. SUB- Sec. (2), (3) and (4) of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act relate to the exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining copy from the period of limitation. sub-section (2) applies to appeal, an application for leave to appeal, revision or review. An election petition under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 cannot be said to be an appeal, an application for leave to appeal or application for revision or review of a judgment. Declaration of result also cannot be called a judgment. SUB. Sec. (2) of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act is therefore, clearly not applicable to the situation. SUB-sec. (3) of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act relates to appeal, revision or review of a decree or order or leave to appeal from a decree or order and provides that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which the decree or order is founded, has to be excluded from the period of limitation. Obviously, an election petition under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is not an appeal, application for revision, application for review or an application for leave to appeal from a decree or order. The declaration of result of election cannot be equated with a decree or order or judgment. SUB-Sec. (3) of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act is also therefore, clearly not applicable to the situation. SUB-Sec. (4) of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act applies to application for setting aside an Award. The declaration of result is not an Award and therefore, sub-Sec. (4) also has no application to the election petition under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. 1994. It is, therefore, clear that benefit under SUB-Sec. (2), (3), and (4) of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act cannot be claimed for the purpose of counting limitation for an election petition under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Of course, the date of the declaration of the result has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for an election petition under sub sec. (1) of Sec. 12 of the Act.