JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - The election petition along with application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant having been dismissed by the learned Court below vide orders dated 28.7.2011 and 4.8.2011, the same are impugned before this court. 2. Briefly, the facts are that election for Sarpanch of village Tappi, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa was held on 6.6.2010. The appellant, being aggrieved, challenged the same before the learned court below on the ground that some forged and bogus votes were casted in favour of the elected candidate. The petitioner Parkasho initially challenged the election of Sarpanch by filing CWP No. 11997 of 2010 Parkash Devi and others vs State of Haryana and others in this court. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.7.2010 with liberty to file election petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed election petition along with application for condonation of delay before the learned court below. Application for condonation of delay was dismissed on 28.7.2011, consequently, the election petition was also dismissed on account of delay vide order dated 4.8.2011. These orders are impugned before this court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, there was no delay in filing of election petition. The result of election was declared on 6.6.2010. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11997 of 2010 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.7.2010 with liberty to the petitioner to file election petition. Immediately thereafter, on 28.7.2010, the election petition was filed before the court below. When the petitioner was pursuing her remedy before this court in writ jurisdiction, the period spent therein should have been excluded for the purpose of consideration of period for filing the election petition before the court below. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paperbook. 5. To appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, a reference to the appropriate provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Limitation Act) and the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Panchayati Raj Act) is required, which are extracted below:- Section 5 of the Limitation Act 5. 5. To appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, a reference to the appropriate provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Limitation Act) and the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Panchayati Raj Act) is required, which are extracted below:- Section 5 of the Limitation Act 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.--The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. Section 176 (1) of the Panchayati Raj Act 176. Determination of validity of election enquiry by judge and procedure.-- (1) If the validity of any election of a member of a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chairman or Vice-Chairman, President or Vice-President of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad respectively is brought in question by any person contesting the election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question relates, such person may at any time within thirty days after the date of the declaration of results of the election, present an election petition to the civil court having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held, for the determination of such question. 6. A perusal of Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that it is applicable only to appeals and applications, other than the applications made under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC. It is not applicable to suits. Now question arises as to the applicability of the law of Limitation on election petitions. Section 176 of the Panchayati Raj Act is silent about the same. 7. It is not applicable to suits. Now question arises as to the applicability of the law of Limitation on election petitions. Section 176 of the Panchayati Raj Act is silent about the same. 7. In Chet Ram and others vs State of Punjab and others, [2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2837] : 2010 (4) PLR 718 , this court held that in the matter of election petition filed under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, the Limitation Act is not applicable in view of Section 80 of the Act and the Tribunal has no other option except to dismiss the election petition if filed beyond 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. Relevant paras of the judgment are extracted below :- “10. From the perusal of Section 76 of the Act, 1994, it can safely be said that election petition has to be filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidates from the last date of the election of the last returned candidate. Section 80 of the Act, 1994 provides that if election petition does not comply with the provision of Section 76 of the Act, 1994, then Court shall dismiss the petition. Word ‘shall’ used in Section 80 of the Act, 1994 makes it mandatory for the Tribunal to dismiss the petition, if it is not filed within 45 days from the date of the election of the retuned candidate as provided by Section 76 of the Act, 1994. 11. Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Lachhman Das Arora (supra) while dealing with the election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in paragraph No.7 has held as under:- “7. On its plain reading, Section 81(1) lays down that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the Act to the High Court by any candidate at such election or by an elector within forty five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. The Act is a special code providing a period of limitation for filing of an election petition. No period for filing of an election petition is prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act. The Act insofar as it relates to presentation and trial of election disputes is a complete code and a special law. The scheme of the special law shows that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act do not apply. If an election petition is not filed within the prescribed period of forty-five days, Section 86 (1) of the Act, which provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117, is straightway attracted.” 12. Learned Single Judge of this Court while interpreting Section 76 of the Act, 1994 in the matter of Joginder Singh (supra) in paragraph No.7 has held as under:- “7. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that while granting liberty to avail the remedy of election petition, no direction qua condonation of delay was passed. The mere fact that the High Court had dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with direction to avail the remedy of election petition in accordance with law, in itself, does not amount to a direction for condonation of delay. Thus, to have condoned the delay on the ground that a liberty had been granted to the respondents to file election petition, can not be sustained. It is admitted that neither any application for condonation of delay was filed nor has any provision for condonation of delay has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents. The provision of Section 76 of the 1994 Act, reproduced above, shows that the election petition should have been filed within a period of forty five days from the date of election of the returned candidate. In the present case, the election of Gram Panchayat Mehal Khurd was held on 26.5.2008 and the forty five days were expired on 09.07.2008. The election petition was filed on 11.11.2008, which is clearly time barred and the same should not have been entertained.” 13. Facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts of Joginder Singh’s case (supra). The election petition was filed on 11.11.2008, which is clearly time barred and the same should not have been entertained.” 13. Facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts of Joginder Singh’s case (supra). Learned Single Judge of this Court in the Joginder Singh’s case has observed that if instead of filing election petition writ petition is filed and writ petition is dismissed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy of filing election petition, then it will not amount to condoning the delay in filing the election petition. 8. In Rashpal Singh alias Rachpal Singh and others vs Jasvir Singh and others (P&H) 2010 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 408, this Court held that an election petition is like on original suit in which delay cannot be condoned. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below:- 10. The question in this case is whether election petition has been filed by the candidate (respondent No.1.) challenging the election of the appellants on the grounds provided under Section 89 (1) within 45 days from the date of election. In the present case, facts have already been noticed. 11. Election was held on 26.5.2008. Writ petition was filed by respondent No.1. in this Court which was ultimately disposed of on 4.10.2008. Admittedly, the time which has been consumed by respondent No.1 in pursuing his remedy in the writ Court, was not condoned. Then the question is that if the limitation is counted from 4.10.2008, whether the election petition is within limitation ?. The answer is ‘No’ because the election petition has been filed on 15.12.2008 after the expiry of 71 days. The question then arises whether provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the facts of this case for the purpose of condonation of delay. 12. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of G.V. Sreerama Reddy & Anr. Vs. Returning Officer & Ors, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 937. This was a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Provisions of Section 81 (1) of the Act provides that election petition should be presented within 45 days. The question arose whether provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable. Vs. Returning Officer & Ors, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 937. This was a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Provisions of Section 81 (1) of the Act provides that election petition should be presented within 45 days. The question arose whether provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable. The apex Court held that Limitation Act cannot apply to the 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 Indian Limitation Act. Similarly, same language has been adopted in the Act in Section 76 that an election petition has to be filed within 45 days. The Apex Court held that the object of presenting an election petition by a candidate or elector is to ensure genuineness and to curtail vexatious litigations. If we consider sub section (1) along-with the other provisions in Chapters II and III, the object and intent of the Legislature is that this provision i.e, Section 81 (I) is to be strictly adhered to and complied with. Thus, the election petition is highly belated as respondent No.1. has failed to seek condonation of delay even at the stage when the writ petition was disposed of by this Court. Moreover, election petition is like an original suit in which delay cannot be condoned. 9. In FAO No. 2749 of 2009- Smt. Gurdev Kaur vs Smt. Surjit Kaur and others, decided on 7.2.2011, this court held that an election petition filed beyond the statutory period from the date of order even if filed after withdrawal of writ petition challenging the same very election, would be beyond limitation and consequently was directed to be dismissed. Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced here:- “A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the writ petition was simply withdrawn with liberty to challenge the election by filing an election petition in accordance with law. That would necessarily mean that the Tribunal was to consider whether in terms of the provisions of the Act, the election petition was maintainable or not. If considered with reference to Section 76 thereof, the election petition filed by the appellant was clearly beyond 45 days, which is the period of limitation provided for the purpose of filing the election petition and had to be dismissed as time-barred. If considered with reference to Section 76 thereof, the election petition filed by the appellant was clearly beyond 45 days, which is the period of limitation provided for the purpose of filing the election petition and had to be dismissed as time-barred. The consequence of filing of an election petition in violation of the provisions of Section 76 of the Act have been provided for in Section 80 thereof, which mandates that the Election Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 76, 77 or 103 of the Act. An identical issue came up before this Court in Bagicha Singh’s case (supra), wherein it was held that an election petition filed beyond 45 days of the date of order of the Tribunal, even if filed after withdrawal of the writ petition challenging the same very election would be beyond limitation and consequently was directed to be dismissed.” 10. The matter was also considered by Andhra Pardesh High Court in Vardhineedi Sree Devi vs Chegondi Ramalakshmi 2007 (5) Andhra Law Times 727, wherein it was opined that an elected candidate cannot be kept in suspense during the entire tenure to the elected post as in case the Limitation Act is held to be applicable, sword of a possible challenge to his election will keep on hanging on his head. Relevant para 6 of the judgment is extracted below:- “6. In LACHHMAN DAS ARORA’s case (4 supra), HUKUMDEV NARAIN YADAV’s case (3 supra) and ANWARI BASAVARAJ PATIL’s case (1 supra), the Apex Court held that the courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds particularly in the matter of election petitions. No doubt, the election petitions in those cases were filed under the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act. No doubt, the election petitions in those cases were filed under the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act. But, the ratio in those cases that the petition questioning the election has to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed, and question of extension of period of limitation does not arise, applies on all fours to election petitions filed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act also, because a candidate declared elected in an election cannot be kept under suspense during the entire tenure to the elected post, because if Section 5 of Limitation Act is held to apply to election petitions, it would tantamount in holding that the election of the elected candidate would be subject to scrutiny by court i.e. Election Tribunal at any time during his tenure, which obviously is not the intention of the law makers. Just like limitation for filing a suit cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act, period of limitation to file an election petition also cannot be extended by taking the aid of Section 5 of Limitation Act.” 11. Reference can also be made to other judgments of this court in upon Bagicha Singh (Ex-Sarpanch) vs Punjab State Election Commission, Punjab, 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 526; Joginder Singh vs Baldeep Singh and others, [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 301] : 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 78 and order dated 27.1.2010 passed in FAO No. 3939 of 2009 –Satnam Singh vs Amrik Singh and others. 12. Similar view has been expressed by other High Courts. Reference can be made to Anil Kumar Jha vs State of Bihar AIR 2011 Patna 1; B.M. Anandavally vs T.Ajitha and others AIR 2001 Kerala 110; Ansar Ahmad vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Kairana and others AIR 1998 Allahabad 341. 13. The undisputed facts on record are that result for the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tappi was declared on 6.6.2010. In terms of the provisions of Section 176 (1) of the Panchayati Raj Act, an election petition could be filed within 30 days after the date of the declaration of result of the election. The petitioner filed the same on 28.7.2010, which was apparently belated. The reason sought to be pleaded by the petitioner that as the matter in dispute remained pending before this court in a writ petition, the period spent therein should be excluded, has no merit. The petitioner filed the same on 28.7.2010, which was apparently belated. The reason sought to be pleaded by the petitioner that as the matter in dispute remained pending before this court in a writ petition, the period spent therein should be excluded, has no merit. This court on 12.7.2010 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file election petition. No further time was granted for filing of election petition. The relevant part of order dated 12.7.2010 passed in writ petition is extracted below:- “Having perused Section 176(4)(a)(iii) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, in the opinion of this Court, question of bogus and forged votes can be gone into in the election petition. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file election petition. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforementioned. However, petitioners are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards exemplary costs for filing frivolous petition and arguing against the provisions of Section 176 (4) (a) (iii) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act. Costs be deposited with the High Court Free Legal Aid Committee within week from today. Payment of costs would be a condition precedent for filing the election petition.” 14. Facts of the present case are identical to that of Chet Ram’s case (supra). In that it was held that dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein merely granting liberty to avail alternate remedy of filing election petition, will not amount to condoning delay in filing the election petition. 15. A perusal of the order passed in the writ petition shows that the writ petition was simply dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the election by filing an election petition in accordance with law. That would necessarily mean that the court below was to consider whether in terms of the provisions of the Act, the election petition was within limitation or not. As the election petition filed by the petitioner was clearly beyond 30 days, the same has rightly been dismissed as time-barred. 16. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------