M KRISHNAJI REDDIAR Vs. MUTHUVEERA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is based upon Rule 4 of the Rules framed by the Local Government for the conduct of enquiries with reference to elections to District Boards, etc., under the Madras Local Boards Act, XIV of 1920, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 14th June, 1921. It is contended that Rule 4, Sub-rule 1, was not complied with inasmuch as the. deposit of Rs. 200 required under it was not made within time and that under Sub-rule 2 the Court was bound to dismiss the petition and Sub-rule 3 did not apply as the provisions of Sub- rule 1 were not complied with.

(2.) The facts on which this question arises are as follows: The petitioner before me was elected as a member of the Taluk Board of Cuddalore. An objection petition was filed to his election by the counter petitioner urging certain grounds against its validity. The election was held on the 12 of May and the result published 6n 15 of May. According to Rule 2 of the above mentioned rules, 14 days were allowed for an objection petition to be presented against the validity of the election. The 14 days in this case having elapsed during the time the Court was closed, the petition was actually put in on the re-opening date, 17 July. It is not contended that the petition was not in time; but on the 17 of July no deposit of 200 rupees was actually made. It would appear from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and from the affidavits filed before him that the Vakil who was entrusted with the filing of this petition had with him a sum of Rs. 200 to deposit. He went to the Sub-Judge in the middle of the day, 7 minutes past 2 (p. m) as the learned Sub-Judge says and presented the petition and stated to the Sub-Judge that he had 200 rupees to pay, but he did not actually tender the money, nor did he ask the Judge to take the deposit himself. In accordance with the usual practice, he went to the Chellan clerk to obtain a chellan to pay his money into the Imperial Bank. That being the luncheon interval, the chellan clerk was not there. He returned soon after, and issued the chellan for payment of the money into the Bank at 2-45 p.m. It is the counter- petitioner's case, and there is nothing to show that it is untrue, that the money was sent to the Bank through one Narayanaswami Reddi. But the Bank being about 2 1/2 miles or 3 miles from the Court-house, he was not able to reach the Bank in time to make the deposit before 3 p.m. as required by the Bank's rules and the Officers of the Bank accordingly declined to accept the money that day. The money was paid into the Bank only the next day. In these circumstances, the question arises whether the Sub-Judge was right in applying the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Grava-bit (the act of the Court should not prejudice any one) to this case. The Sub-Judge has applied that principle but I regret I am unable to agree with him; for it cannot be said that in this case, the failure to pay the money in time was due to any action taken by the Court.

(3.) The learned Vakil for the respondent says that as the chellan clerk was not in his seat when the petitioner's Vakil went to him at the luncheon hour, he lost time and was unable to make the payment in the Bank according to its rules and the fault is the clerk s. But this argument cannot be accepted, for the time during which the Vakil went to the chellan clerk was the time when the clerks were allowed to go for tiffin. It cannot be said that the clerk committed any fault in going away for his tiffin and being absent at the time. He seems to have granted the chellan as soon as he returned. The Vakil certainly knew that he could not expect the clerk to be in his place of work during the luncheon time.