- (1.) In this petition petitioner Mange Ram has prayed for setting aside the election of respondent No. 4 Risal Singh from 07 Mullana Assembly Constituency, of Haryana Vidhan Sabha held on 27-4-1996. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed application bearing CM No. 5-E of 1996 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act read with Section 151, C.P.C. for condoning the delay of two days in filing the election petition. In para 4 of the application, it has been stated that papers for filing the election petition were handed over by the applicant to his Advocate Sh. R. S. Mamli and the last date for filing the election petition was 24-6-1996. It has further been stated that the counsel had called the petitioner on 23-6-1996 to put signatures and verify the facts but on 23-6-1996 petitioner had fallen sick and he was advised complete bed rest by the Doctor and he could recover from his sickness only on 25-6-1996 and came to the counsel for putting the signatures. It was in these circumstances that there was delay of two days in filing the election petition.
(2.) Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 4 has been filed. In the reply, inter alia, it has been stated that in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Limitation Act is not applicable when the election petition is filed beyond the period of limitation. It has, therefore, been prayed that the application as well as the election petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(3.) Mr. Mamli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner during the course of his arguments conceded that the Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the election petition. He, however, submitted that under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, the delay in filing the election petition could be condoned. He submitted that the last date for filing the election petition was 24-6-1996 but since the Court was closed up to 30-6-1996 on account of summer vacations, the election petition could be filed on or before 1-7-1996. He, therefore, contended that in fact there was no delay in filing the petition. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao v. M. Budda Prasad, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 449.;