JUDGMENT : 1.With consent, the matter is finally heard. 2.This revision, under Section 26 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 4the Act'), has been preferred against orderdated 27-4-2011 passed bySecond Additional District Judge, Khurai , Distt . Sagai Ma Civil Suit No.19- A/11, rejecting petitioner's application under Section 5 of the LimitationAct, 1963 (for short "Limitation Act'), for condo nation of delay of onlyone day in filing of the petition calling in question election to respondentNo. 1 to the seat of Councillor of Ward No. 14 inMunicipal Council at Khurai . 3.Placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manguram Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation, (1976) 1 SCC 392 and Shaik Saidulu Vs. Chukka Yesu Ratnam , (2002) 3 SCC 130 , learned Counsel for thepetitioner has submitted that provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act isapplicable to the election petition, presented under Section 20 of the Act. 4.In Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra , AIR 1974 SC 480 ,the Apex Court laid down the following guidelines :- "Evenin a case where the special law docs not exclude the provisions of Sections 4to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless beopen to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of thoseprovisions or the nature of the subject matter and scheme of the special lawexclude their operation. What the Court has to see is whether the scheme of thespecial law, that is in this case the Act, and thenature of the remedy provided therein are such that the Legislature intended itto be a complete Code by itself which alone should govern several mattersprovided by it. What the Court has to see is whether the scheme of thespecial law, that is in this case the Act, and thenature of the remedy provided therein are such that the Legislature intended itto be a complete Code by itself which alone should govern several mattersprovided by it. -If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clearthat the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then thebenefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisionsof the Act." 5.Relevant excerpts of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act read as under:- "(3)No petition presented under sub-section (2) shall be admitted unless- ( i ) it is presented within thirtydays from the date on which the result of such election or nomination wasnotified in the Gazette; and (ii) it is accompanied by a Government Treasury receiptshowing a deposit of two hundred rupees, in the case of election or nominationto Municipal Councils and one hundred rupees in the case of election ornomination to Nagar Panchayats ." 6.Accordingly, non-filing of the election petition under the Act within theprescribed period of limitation visits the penalty of the petition beingdismissed. Thus, provisions of Limitation Act would not become applicable, evenby virtue of Section 29 (2) thereof, to an Election Petition under the Act,which itself is a self-contained Code. 7.Further, the Act does not contain any provision corresponding to Section 671 ofHyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, that formed basis of the decisionrendered in Shaik Saidulu's case (supra). For these reasons, none of the decisions cited at the bar is ofany avail to the petitioner. 8.To sum up, Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the filing of anelection petition under the Act. 9.As an obvious consequence, no interference with the impugned order is calledfor under the revisional jurisdiction. 10.The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.