Civil Revision No. 5654 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5654 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 16.09.2011 Ram Niwas .... Petitioner Versus Rohtash and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Ram Niwas, petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.04.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rohtak, by way of filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The election petition brought by the petitioner on 04.01.2011, challenging the election held on 06.06.2010 in which Rohtash, respondent no.1 was declared as winning candidate, has been dismissed by learned trial court on the ground of limitation after dismissing the application for condonation of delay. It may be mentioned here that in the election held on 6.6.2010, Rohtash, respondent no.1 was declared as winning candidate. Claiming him to have been wrongly declared as winning candidate, the petitioner filed civil writ petition no. 19014 of 2010 in this court, Civil Revision No. 5654 of 2011 --2-- which was dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2010 on the ground that the petitioner had efficacious remedy available to him and he may take recourse to the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the election petition on 04.01.2011 challenging the said election. The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the same has been filed after the expiry of limitation period. It was also mentioned in the reply that this court did not condone the delay and as such the petition was barred by limitation. I have heard Mr. S.P. Chahar, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. It is undisputed fact that this court did not make any order under which the period for which the revision petition remained pending may be excluded while computing the limitation period. An election petition can be brought challenging the election within 30 days from the date of declaration of result. Even if it is assumed that the period spent in prosecuting the election petition is to be excluded then even the writ petition was dismissed on 2.12.2010 and the election petition was filed beyond 30 days of the said date. The election petition prima-facie appears to be barred by limitation even if the limitation period is reckoned from the date of dismissal of the civil writ petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that time was taken by the petitioner in obtaining copies of order dated 2.12.2010 passed in civil writ petition is of no avail to him. The copy of the order passed in civil writ petition was not to be filed alongwith the election petition. Civil Revision No. 5654 of 2011 --3-- The petitioner came to know from the order dated 2.12.2010 that he was to avail the remedy of challenging the election by filing the election petition under Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 on the date of passing of the order itself. Therefore, no such submission could be entertained with a view to enlarge the period of limitation. The election petition filed on 04.01.2011 has, therefore, been rightly held as barred by limitation. Consequently I find no patent illegality in the order passed by learned trial court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.09.2011 dinesh