JUDGMENT 1. 1. An important question is involved in this writ petition and it is as to whether in an Election Petition filed under Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Anti Nyaya Up-Samiti Election Rules, 1960 (for short, the Rules), Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Limitation Act) is attracted to condone the delay or not? 2. Bharat Lal, the petitioner, contested the election to the office of Panch from Village Unnikhurd in the election held on June 1, 1988 and having secured 144 votes was declared elected by the Election Officer. His nearest rival, Inder, respondent No. 2 secured 119 votes. The respondent filed the election petition on August 8, 1988 before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class (Election Tribunal) Gangapur City which was registered as Election Petition No. 47/88, Inder v. Bharatlal . Because the election petition was filed beyond 30 days of the declaration of result, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the election petition and the reason in that :application was that the respondent No. 2 learnt about the result of the election petition only on August 5, 1988 from one Khem Raj and then he secured a copy of the result on August 6, 1988 and then submitted the election petition. The learned Election Tribunal under its order dated November 18, 1988 (Amur. 1) has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) contains a complete machinery for disposal of the election petition and therefore the provisions of Limitation Act including Section 5 thereof will not apply. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that the Act does not provide complete machinery for trial of the election petitions and therefore in view of provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act the said Act will be applicable. 4. Before any controversy can be determined, a look at the provisions of the Act as well as Rules so far as the election petition is concerned, is necessary. Under Section 6 of the Act the election of the Panchas shall be held and conducted in the prescribed manner. Rules 14 to 46 of the Rules provide procedure for election of Panchas. Under Section 6 of the Act the election of the Panchas shall be held and conducted in the prescribed manner. Rules 14 to 46 of the Rules provide procedure for election of Panchas. The election of Panchas of a Panchayat starts with the publication of notice of election. There are provisions in the Rules for filing of the nomination, scrutiny of the nomination papers, commencement of poll, manner of casting votes etc and I will straight-away come to rule 38 of the Rules which deals with counting of votes. The counting of votes shall commence on such date and at such time and place as the Returning Officer may appoint, which shall be communicated to all the candidates. The votes are to be counted by or under the supervision of the Returning Officer and each candidate shall have a right to be present at the time of condting. The reasonable opportunity to inspect, without handing the ballot paper which he considers to be liable to rejection. Any candidate present at the counting may at any time during the counting of votes request the Returning Officer to re-count the ballot papers of all or any of the candidates including himself and the Returning Officer shall thereupon re-count the same. Under rule 41 of the Rules the result of election is declared and when the counting of votes has been completed, the Returning Officer shall make up separate packets of (a) (i) counted valid ballot papers, and (ii) the ballot papers rejected at the counting, (b) affix his seal to each such packet, (c) prepare and certify a return in Form IV setting forth therein (i) the names and addresses of the candidates who have been declared under sub-rule (2) of rule 20 to have been elected unopposed, (ii) the names and addresses of the candidates for whom valid votes have been cast, (iii) the number of valid votes cast for such candidate. (iv) the number of votes rejected as invalid and (v) the result of the lot, if any, drawn under rule 40 and (d) declare the candidate who has secured the largest number of votes as a result of the poll or the lot drawn under rule 40 to be elected, and (e) specify the wards which have failed to elect the requisite number of Panchas. Sub-rule (2) of rule 41 of the Rules provides that the Returning Officer has to forward (i) one copy of the return prepared under sub- rule (1) to the office of the Panchayat, if any, (ii) one such copy each to the officer-in-charge of Panchayats and to the newly elected Sarpanch or to the Up-sarpanch, if there is no Sarpanch, (iii) one copy thereof alongwith all papers relating to the election to the Collector, (iv) one copy thereof to the Panchayat Samiti of the Block within which the Panchayat circle lies and (v) one copy to the Director of Elections Rajasthan, Jaipur. Under Section 14 of the Act every election or appointment of a Sarpanch Upsarpanch and Panch excluding an associate Panch, shall be notified in the official gazette in accordance with rules made under the Act. The relevant rule is rule 44 and the names of all Panchas elected or appointed under rule 43 shall be notified by the Deputy District Development Officer or Addl. District Development Officer in the official gazette of the State. 5. Chapter II, Part II(illegible) of the Rules deals with election disputes. Rule 78 provides the manner of challenging an election or co-option under the Rules and the election or co-option of any person as the Panch of a Panchayat or the election of any person as the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Panchayat or as the member of a Nyaya Up-Samiti may be called in question by presenting a petition to the Munsif, or where there is no Munsif to the Civil Judge. Within whose jurisdiction the place of Headquarters of the Panchayat or the Nyuya Circle, as this case may he. is situated, within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or co-option is declared on any tie or more of the grounds contained in clauses(a) to (F). Rule 79 provides as to who may present election petition and under sub- rule (1) thereof a petition under rule 78 may be presented by an elector or by any candidate at such election or co-option as the case may be. In sub-rule (2) of rule 79, no petition shall be deemed to have been presented under the Rules unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50/- alongwith the petition by way of security for the costs of the opposite party. In sub-rule (2) of rule 79, no petition shall be deemed to have been presented under the Rules unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50/- alongwith the petition by way of security for the costs of the opposite party. Under rule 80 (1) of the Rules the petition shall contain concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies, and shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure (Central Act of 1908) for the verification of pleadings. and sub-rule (2) of rule 80 also provides that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified by him in the same manner as the petition. Rule 81 deals with parties to the petition and rule 82 deals with appearances and acts. Rule 83 deals with hearing of the petition and provides that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in regard to suits, shall, in so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of the petition. Under the proviso to rule 83 (a) any two or more petitions relating to the election or co-option of the same person shall be heard together, (b) the election tribunal shall not be required to record evidence in full but shall only make a memorandum whereof sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the petition, (c) the petitioner, may at any stage of the proceedings be asked to give further security for the payment of the costs likely to be incurred by any respondent, (d) the Election Tribunal shall only be bound to requite the production of or to receive so much evidence, oral or documentary as he considers necessary, and (e) no witness or other person shall be required to state for whom he has voted at an election or co-option. Rule 84 deals with power of court hearing petition and it provides that the Election Tribunal shall have the same powers and privileges as a Judge of a Civil Court when trying a suit and may for the purpose of serving any notice or issuing any process or doing another thing employ an officer, clerk or peon attached to his court. Rule 85(l ) of the Rules provides that upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Election Tribunal shall make an order. (a) dismissing the petition, or (b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void or, (c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected and under sub-rule (2) of Rule 85, the Election Tribunal after pronouncing the order made under sub-rule(l) shall send a copy thereof to the Collector for taking further necessary action in pursuance thereof. Rule 86 provides that any order with regard to costs passed by the Election Tribunal shall be executed by him on the application made in that behalf in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for the payment of money made by himself in a suit.Rule 86A vests general power of transfer or withdrawal and under its sub-rule (1) on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard or of his own motion without such notice, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the place of head quarters of the Panchayat or Nyaya circle, as the case may be, is situated may, at any stage of the proceeding withdraw any petition pending in the court of the Election Tribunal subordinate to him. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid relevant provisions of the Act and Rules will show that in the hearing of election petitions the Election Tribunal, so far as the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be made applicable, has to follow the procedure except as provided in rule 83 which has already been referred to in the earlier part of this order. 7. I will revert to the question framed in the earlier part of this order. 7. I will revert to the question framed in the earlier part of this order. In support of his contention that the Limitation Act including its Section 5, is not applicable to an election petition under the Act and the Rules, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Ramanandan Rai v. The District Judge, Sitambrhi & others, AIR 1980 Patna 180 , Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, AIR 1974 SC 480 and K. V. Rao v. B. N. Reddi, AIR 1969 SC 872 and has contended that the Act and the Rules provide the compete machinery for trial of an election petition and therefore Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply and the petition having been filed admitted after 30 days of the declaration of result, was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand contends that the Act and the Rules do not provide complete machinery for hearing election petition and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been made applicable for election petition. He further contends that because in view of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 (inclusive) will apply because they are not expressly excluded by the Act or Rules. 8. As stated earlier the Returning Officer declared result of the election on June 1, 1988 and the election petition was filed on August 8, 1988 after 30 days and that is why an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed along with the election petition seeking condonation of delay. 8. As stated earlier the Returning Officer declared result of the election on June 1, 1988 and the election petition was filed on August 8, 1988 after 30 days and that is why an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed along with the election petition seeking condonation of delay. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act is reproduced here which reads as under : "(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 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." A bare reading of the above extracted sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act would show that where any special or local law prescribes different period of limitation than prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any spacial or local law and the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) shall apply unless and only in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Therefore, there can be no doubt that unless the Act or Rules expressly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to an election petition filed under rule 78 of the Rules, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply. Therefore, there can be no doubt that unless the Act or Rules expressly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to an election petition filed under rule 78 of the Rules, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply. A reference in the earlier part of this order has already been made to various rules dealing aah presentation and disposal of the election petition and it may be stated that the Act and Rules which is special law for the purpose of election petitions under the Act, does not expressly exclude the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act and therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply. The Supreme Court in the case of K. V. Rao v. B. N. Reddi (supra) was dealing with the provisions of Sections 81 and 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended in 1966 and said that the provisions of the Limitation Act will apply to all civil proceedings and some special criminal provisional proceedings which can be taken in a court of law unless the application thereof has been excluded by any enactment the extent of such application is governed by Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. However, it further said that the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition inasmuch as the Representation of the People Act is a complete and self-contained code which does not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Limitation Act. Before the amendment in the Representation Act in 1966 under its then existing Sec.(illegible)the Commission had power to admit an application presented after prescribed period of limitation if it was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the same, but after the said amendment such power was not there and under Section 86, it was provided that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or 82 or 117 of the Representation of People Act. In the Act or the Rules, there is no provision that if the election petition is not presented within 30 days as provided in rule 78 of the Rules the Election Tribunal shall dismiss it. In the Act or the Rules, there is no provision that if the election petition is not presented within 30 days as provided in rule 78 of the Rules the Election Tribunal shall dismiss it. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Representation of People Act the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act will not apply because its application was expressly excluded. Again in the case of Hukum Dev v. Lalit Narain (supra) the Supreme Court examined the same 'question again and said that even in case where special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of the provisions of the special law or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. The Supreme Court further said that the court has to see whether the scheme of the special law and the nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code. If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the special Act.The Supreme Court further said that the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act that a suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed are provided for in Section 86 of the Representation of People Act which gives a (illegible)tory command that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81,82 or 117. If for non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 82 & 117, which are mandatory, the election petition has to be dismissed under Section 86 (1) the presentation of election petition within the period prescribed in Section 81 would he equally mandatory, the non-compliance with which visits the penalty of the petition being dismissed. If for non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 82 & 117, which are mandatory, the election petition has to be dismissed under Section 86 (1) the presentation of election petition within the period prescribed in Section 81 would he equally mandatory, the non-compliance with which visits the penalty of the petition being dismissed. In my opinion, none of the aforesaid cases of the Supreme Court is applicable to the present case, because as already stated in the earlier part of this order the Act or the Rules which is special law for election petition under the Act, not only expressly they do not exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act, but even by perusal of the scheme of the Act and Rules, the application of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act obviously including Section 5, cannot be held to be excluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner, it appeared, has made his case on the basis of the case of Ramanandan Rai v. The District Judge (supra) of the Patna High Court but in my opinion that case has no application because in Bihar Panchayat Election Rules there was a rule 77, to provide that the Tribunal shall dismiss the election petition which does not comply with the provisions of rule 72 which was in respect of limitation for providing election petition. In that case, placing reliance on the aforesaid two cases of the Supreme Court, it was held that the Limitation Act is not applicable, if the election petition is not filed within the prescribed time and the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay. I have already said in the earlier part of this order that the Supreme Court cases are not applicable because the special law, i. e. the Act and the Rules, does not contain provision like the provisions of Section 86 of the Representation of People Act. Therefore, in my opinion the case of Ramanandan (supra) was decided on Bihar Panchayat Election Rules and it has no application to this case under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, in my opinion the case of Ramanandan (supra) was decided on Bihar Panchayat Election Rules and it has no application to this case under the Act and the Rules. Even in the case of Ramanandan Rai (supra) extracting Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act the court said that:- "In view of this sub-section if any special or local law prescribes any special period of limitation, even in such cases the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply unless expressly excluded by such special or local law. In view of this provision, unless the application of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are excluded, those provisions become applicable. On the basis of this Section 29 (2) it can be argued that unless the Election Rules specifically exclude the applicability of Section 5, Section 5 shall be applicable vesting power in the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing an election petition on being satisfied about the sufficiency of the cause." In Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khub Chand Baghel and others AIR 1964 SC 1099 dealing with the case under Section 116A (I) of the Representation of People Act which was governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure which provided that period of limitation the period of limitation provided by Section 156 of the Limitation Act. it was held that Special Act prescribing different period under Section 116 A (3), Section 29 (2A) of the Limitation Act applies to the appeal and the appellant is entitled to exclusion of time required for obtaining copy of order tinder Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Reference in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 477/87, Vishandas v. Savitri Devi 1988 (1) RLR 1 . ex mined the question whether an application under Section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950, provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied. The court in pars 11 of the judgment said that the same can he applied in view of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. 9. ex mined the question whether an application under Section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950, provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied. The court in pars 11 of the judgment said that the same can he applied in view of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. 9. I am therefore, of the opinion that to an election petition filed under Rule 78 of the Rules, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable and in case proper case is made out the Election Tribunal has power to condone the delay in presenting the election petition. 10. The election to the office of Panch took place on June I. 1968 and the result of the same was declared by the Returning Officer on the same day. A perusal of Annr. R/I which has been filed by the respondent No. 2 alongwith the reply will show that it is prescribed form IV and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was shown to have secured 119 votes and Inder. respondent No. 2 was shown to have secured 144 votes. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the learned Election Tribunal, it has been mentioned that Inder respondent No. 2 was informed by Khem Raj son of Thandi Meena r/o Udaikhurd a Panch of Ward No. 9, that in the list of Panchas of Gram Panchayat Udaikhurd, the name of Inder is not there. He enquired about the latter on August 6, 1988 and came to know that instead of Inder being declared having more votes, the Returning Officer declared the petitioner to have elected. In a case of present nature, if the learned Election Tribunal has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which jurisdiction it had, no case for interference is made out. 11. Consequently, I find no force in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 500/-.Petition dismissed with costs. *******