-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8323 OF 2011. Shivaji Tukaram Mali and ors ..Petitioners. Versus Pravin Kondu Walvi & 14 others ..Respondents. Mr Shivraj R. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr R.M.Patne, A.G.P.for the Respondents. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : 12th October, 2011. P. C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P.for the State. 2. By this writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wada, whereby the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay, occurred in filing election petition came to be rejected. 3. The petitioners filed election petition before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wada, challenging election of ward Nos.1-A and 3-C electing respondent No.1. Admittedly, election petition is required to be filed within the period of 15 days from the date of declaration of results under Section 15 of the -: 2 :- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, however, the petitioners did not file the election petition within the said period. There was delay of 52 days and, therefore, separate application was preferred for condonation of the delay which is rejected by the impugned order by the learned Civil Judge and, therefore, this petition is filed before this Court. 4. The petitioners’ application is rejected on the ground that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable to the election petition and, therefore, the Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The trial Judge relied upon the decision of this Court in Umesh Tukaram Kamble & ors vs. Shamrao Sakharam Patil and ors 2008 (1) Bom.C.R.639. 5. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners relying the upon the judgment in of the Apex Court in the case of Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker (1995) 5 SCC 5 argued that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the election petition. 6. The learned Civil Judge who entertained and rejected petition under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is a persona designata and not the Court and, -: 3 :- therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable. Similar view is taken by this Court in the case of Shankar Sadu Pawar vs. Babu Laxman Dalvi, 1999 (3) Bom.L.R. 689 and Sukhadev vs. Jagdeo 1963 Mh.LJ, 53 (NOC). 7. The Apex Court in Mukri Gopal (cited supra) was considering the provisions of Kerala Rent Control Act and the provisions of the Limitation Act. The Apex Court held that the District Judges function as an Appellate Authority and under Section 18 of the said Act, they are courts and not persona designata. In the present case, as stated above, the Civil Judge entertains the petition as persona designata and not the Court. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukri Gopal is, therefore, not applicable to the present case. I find no merit in the writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)