Ved Prakash v. Sunil Kumar Jha & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. FEBRUARY 03, 2016

‗gsr'

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd February, 2016 + W.P.(C) 5291/2013 VED PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar with Mr. Mohit Singh, Advs. Versus SUNIL KUMAR JHA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. for R-1 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2013 of the District Judge, Shahdara of rejection (on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC) of a petition filed by the petitioner impugning the election held on 15th April, 2012 of the respondent no.1 as a Municipal Commissioner from Ward No.242, New Seemapuri, Delhi, on the ground of the election petition filed by the petitioner being barred by time and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 invoked by the petitioner being not applicable to such petitions. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1. None of the other respondents have appeared despite service. 3. The counsels have been heard. 4. It is not in dispute that the election petition is prescribed to be filed within 15 days from the date of publication of the result of the election within the meaning of Section 14 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (MCD Act) and that the petition was not filed within the said period of 15 days. The petitioner along with election petition filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act setting out the reasons for condonation of delay. 5. The learned District Judge has held: (i) that as per the dicta of the Supreme court in K. Venkateswara Rao Vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi AIR 1969 SC 872 followed in Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra AIR 1974 SC 480, Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition inasmuch as the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act) is a complete and self contained code which does not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of the Limitation Act; (ii) as per the dicta of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev Narain Yadav supra it is to be seen whether the scheme of the special law and the nature of remedy provided therein are such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code and if found to be so, the provisions of the Limitation Act have to be necessarily excluded. Reliance was also placed on Ravindra Chourasia Vs. Ramashankar ILR (2012) MP 1402 on an analogus provision in the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 holding the provisions of the Limitation Act to be not applicable; (iii) that though Election Rules, 2012 have been framed vide Notification dated 28th February, 2012 qua the subject elections but the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not extended thereunder also to the filing of election petitions; (iv) reliance was placed on Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (2010) 2 SCC 15 holding the provisions of the Limitation Act to be not applicable to the application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957 for leave to defend an eviction petition; (v) reliance was placed on State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 7 SCC 516 holding Section 5 of the Limitation Act to be not applicable to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (vi) the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is a complete code by itself which governs the subject matters provided therein and Rule 91 of the Rules aforesaid also provide that if the provisions of the Section 15 of the MCD Act are not complied with, the election petition shall be dismissed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act which is as under: "29. Savings.- (1) .............................. (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section