JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-non-applicant has laid this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 (Annex.6) passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Bikaner in Election Petition No.33/2015 laid by the respondent. 2. Facts in brief are that petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Manasar, Panchayat Samiti, Kolayat District Bikaner on 24.01.2015. The election of petitioner as Sarpanch is challenged by the respondent - defeated candidate by laying election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the 'Act of 1994') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules of 1994'). After filing of the election petition on behalf of the petitioner, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC is filed precisely on the ground that election petition is barred by limitation inasmuch as respondent has deposited requisite amount of Rs. 500/- as security before the Election Tribunal after expiry of period of limitation. As per the version of petitioner, the last date for depositing the requisite amount was 22.02.2015 whereas the amount aforesaid was deposited on 23.02.2015, therefore, election petition is barred by limitation and merits rejection on the anvil of Clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC. 3. The application is contested by the respondent and reply to the same is filed stating therein that application is filed to prolong the proceedings in the election petition. 4. The learned Election Tribunal after considering the rival parties rejected the application of petitioner by invoking Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned order in conjunction with Sections 9 & 10 of the General Clauses Act, in my view, the learned Election Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 7. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned order in conjunction with Sections 9 & 10 of the General Clauses Act, in my view, the learned Election Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 7. True it is that an election petition under the Rules of 1994 is required to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the result of the election is declared and Rule 80 of the Rules of 1996 envisage the aforesaid period of limitation but then, if on the last date i.e. 30th day, if the court is closed, then on the next working date, petition can be filed by applying rigour of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. Obviously when on the last date of filing election petition, if the Court is closed, it is not possible for an incumbent to file an election petition and the election petitioner is well within his right to present the same on the next working day. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act specifically deals with this sort of contingency and the same has been rightly invoked by the learned Election Tribunal in non-suiting the petitioner. 8. In totality, unhesitantly, I am of the view that presentation of election petition on 23.02.2015 and further deposit of requisite amount of security on that date has not rendered the election petition barred by limitation and the same has rightly been concluded by the Election Tribunal in the impugned order. 9. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******