Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 5.9.2009 passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer Election Tribunal, Tarn Taran (for Short `Election Tribunal) whereby, election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of the respondent for the post of Sarpanch of Village Pakhopur, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran has been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of limitation observing thus :- "Moreover, the instant election petition is otherwise time barred because in this case the election to the office of Sarpanch of the said village Pakhopur was held on 5.7.2008. As provided under the law, the election petition could be filed by the petitioner within 45 days i.e. upto 7.9.2008. Therefore, this election petition is time barred as it has been filed on 10.9. 008. Thus, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents." 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the presiding officer has illegally and secretly conducted the meeting dated 1.7.2008 otherwise there is no question of the appellant not attending the meeting on the said date thereby paving way for the respondent to be elected as Sarpanch, though, in minority. It is also submitted that the said Presiding Officer, namely, Guriqbal Singh conducted election in three Panchayats, namely, Merhana, Johal Dhaewala, Pakhopur. Out of which election of village Johal Dhaewala was challenged by the aggrieved Panches by way of CWP No. 15721 of 2008 and was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.12.2008 on the basis of an agreement between the parties to have the election of Sarpanch afresh. It is also submitted that according to his information, election conducted by Sewak Singh of village Merhana is also under challenge before this Court. 3. In these circumstances, it is alleged that the proceedings conducted by the said Presiding Officer in the present case cannot be accepted especially in view of the report of the SDM Patti dated 1.8.2008. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that on merits, this case cannot be decided by this Court unless and until the election petition is found to have been filed within limitation. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that on merits, this case cannot be decided by this Court unless and until the election petition is found to have been filed within limitation. He referred to the provisions of Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short `the Act) to contend that the election of a returned candidate can be challenged within a period of 45 days from the date of his election and the said period cannot be extended with the aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the election petition is to be treated as a suit and there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing of the suit. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the findings recorded by the learned Election Tribunal with regard to the issue of limitation, which has not been challenged by the appellant, I am of the view that since the election petition has been filed, admittedly, after a period of 45 days, therefore, the Election Tribunal has rightly dismissed the same. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed though without any order as to costs.