Civil Revision No.892 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.892 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 10.07.2009 Smt.Kulbir Kaur ......Petitioner VERSUS Sukhwant Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2008, passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amritsar. There is 15 days delay in filing the election petition before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amritsar, regarding the election of Panch, Gram Panchayat Village Sarangra. However, vide order dated 07.08.2008, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Now Kulbir Kaur respondent (now petitioner) has challenged the said order while contending that there are no provisions under the Representation of People Act or the Gram Panchayat Election Rules for condoning the delay in filing the election petition and has placed reliance upon Mange Ram petitioner vs. District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum- Returning Officer and others respondents AIR 1998 (P&H) 78, where it Civil Revision No.892 of 2009 2 was observed as under: “As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, AIR 1974 SC 480 : 1974 (2) SCC 133: Hari Shankar Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh, 1976 (1) SCC 897, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the election petition under the Act. It was, however, held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would in terms be applicable to the election petitions under the Act. It has, therefore, not been disputed before me that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the election petition. It is also not disputed that benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act can be availed to save limitation under the Act. But the question to be examined is as to whether High Court registry was open during summer vacation in the year 1996 from 1.6.1996 to 30.6.1996. In the present case, it is evident that the election petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation. As stated hereinabove, the delay in filing the election petition cannot be condoned. However, no law to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in order to urge that the limitation Act was applicable to the election petitions. Hence the present petition is allowed and the election petition, filed by the petitioner-respondent Sukhwant Kaur, being time barred, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 10.07.2009 mamta-II