ORDER : 1. The two petitions under consideration agitate an identical legal issue and hence are being disposed of by this common judgment SBCWP No.4701/2016 titled Shanti vs. Savitri is taken as the lead case and its facts adverted to. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar holding the election petition filed by the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter ‘election petitioner’) on 18.02.2015 against the petitioner-returned candidate’s (hereinafter ‘returned-candidate’) election as Sarpanch on 18.01.2015, within limitation and hence not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC as barred by law. 3. Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, counsel for the returned-candidate submitted that Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1994’) provides that an election to a Panchayati Raj Institution may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting a petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date of which the result of such election is declared. He submitted that as the limitation for filing of an election petition under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 is a special limitation, the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply for filing of election petitions thereunder. In this view of the matter the election petition against result declared on 18.01.2015 by which the returned-candidate was elected as Sarpanch, filed on 18.02.2015 being beyond the 30th day from the date of declaration of the result deserved dismissal for not being maintainable and hit by limitation. He further submitted that even Section 10 and 11 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1955’) do not attract to election petitions filed under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 as is evident from the fact that the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1994’) and the Rules of 1994 thereunder were framed subsequent thereto and yet no lee way on limitation in filing elections with reference to and analogy of the said provision given. Hence the limitation of 30 days for filing of election petitions from date of declaration of result, in respect of elections to the Panchayat Raj Institutions is to be mathematically construed and cannot be extended by application of Section 10 and 11 of the Act of 1955. Hence the limitation of 30 days for filing of election petitions from date of declaration of result, in respect of elections to the Panchayat Raj Institutions is to be mathematically construed and cannot be extended by application of Section 10 and 11 of the Act of 1955. And were it so the period of limitation under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 would stand extended beyond 30 days contrary to the specific legislative intent evinced on a plain reading thereof. 4. Dr. P.C. Jain, appearing for the election-petitioner conceded that Limitation Act does not attract to filing of election petition under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 as limitation provided therein is a special limitation language of which excludes by necessary implication its application. He however emphatically submitted that the Act of 1955 applies without exception to all laws enacted in the State of Rajasthan whether prior or subsequent thereto as clear from Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. He referred to Section 10 of the Act of 1955 and submitted that in terms thereof the date from which limitation is to be computed i.e. the date of the declaration of result has to be excluded. Dr. P.C. Jain referring to Section 11 of the Act of 1955 then submitted that in the event of the limitation under a Rajasthan Act or Rule expiring on a holiday it has perforce be extended to the following working day. Dr. P.C. Jain submitted that in the instant case the result of the election to the Post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thakeda, Tehsil Rainey, Dist. Alwar was declared on 18.01.2015. The said date in terms of Section 10 of the Act of 1955 would stand excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. So necessarily excluded, the limitation for filing the election petition would expire on 17.02.2015 which however was a public holiday on account of ‘Mahashivratri’. Consequently the election petition challenging the returned candidate’s election under the result declared on 18.01.2015 could be filed by resort to Section 11 of the Act of 1955 upto 18.02.2015 i.e. the next working day when admittedly it was filed. It was thus within the time period/limitation under Rule 80 of the Act of 1994. Consequently, nothing illegal or perverse can be attributed to the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 holding to be so. It was thus within the time period/limitation under Rule 80 of the Act of 1994. Consequently, nothing illegal or perverse can be attributed to the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 holding to be so. The petition therefore is liable to be dismissed, submitted Dr. P.C. Jain. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 insofar as relevant is produced hereinbelow:- “80. Manner of challenging an election under the Act.- An election under the Act or under the Rules may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting a petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election is declared, on any one or more of the following grounds. 7. Sections 4, 10 and 11 of the Act of 1955 read as under:- “Section 4. Application:- Unless otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires, the provisions of this Act shall apply- (i). to this Act, (ii). to all Rajasthan law 1[in force in the pre-reorganisation State of Rajasthan] made after the commencement of this Act, (iii). to all Central Acts adapted to Rajasthan From time to time, by the Rajasthan State Legislature, (iv). Where any such law or Act confers upon any authority a power to make rules, regulations or bye-laws, to such rules, regulations or bye-laws, (v). so far as may be, to all Rajasthan laws [in force in the pre-re-organization State of Rajasthan] Pertaining to Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution made before the commencement of this Act and to any rules, regulations of bye-laws thereunder, [and] [(vi) to all Rajasthan laws and to Rules, regulations and bye-laws thereunder made on or after the first day of November, 1956].” “Section 10:- Commencement and termination of time:- In any Rajasthan law, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word “from” and, for the purpose of including the 1st in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word “to”.” Section 11. Computation of Time:- Where, by any Rajasthan law, any Act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open. 8. It is indeed true that Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 provides for a special limitation for filing of election petitions laying a challenge to elections on a post under the Panchayat Raj Institutions. The post of Sarpanch to which the returned-candidate was elected is one such post. Period of limitation for such a petition is admittedly 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election. 9. The preamble to the Act of 1955 states that it provides for and facilitates the interpretation of Rajasthan laws enacted at any time whether prior or subsequent and makes others provisions relating thereto. The Act of 1994 as also the election rule of the same year are such Rajasthan laws. In interpretating Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994, Section 10 and 11 of the Act of 1955 will perforce attract. 10. Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 provides that an election petition be filed within 30 days FROM the date of declaration of result. The word FROM in the said rule would require because of Section 10 of the Act of 1955 exclusion of the date of the declaration of result of the election to the post of Sarpanch while computing 30 days for filing the election petition. So excluded, 18.01.2015 when the result of election to the post of Sarpanch was declared cannot be reckoned for while computing the 30 days limitation. Resultantly the limitation for filing the election petition in the instant case expired on 17.02.2015. That was however a public holiday for reason of “Mahashivratri”. Under Section 11 of the Act of 1955 the limitation in the circumstances would extend to 18.02.2015 the following working day when the election petition was filed. Resultantly the limitation for filing the election petition in the instant case expired on 17.02.2015. That was however a public holiday for reason of “Mahashivratri”. Under Section 11 of the Act of 1955 the limitation in the circumstances would extend to 18.02.2015 the following working day when the election petition was filed. The election petition could thus not be rejected for being outside limitation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as urged by counsel for the returned-candidate. The Trial Court under the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 has taken a correct view in rejecting the returned candidate’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 11. The Apex Court in the case of K. Venkateswara Rao and anr. vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and Ors. [ AIR 1969 (SC) 872 ] , has held that even though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions under the Representation of People Act, 1951 which is a complete and self contained code and has its special limitation provisions Section 9 and 10 of the Act of General Clauses Act, 1897 providing for computation of time would apply to such petitions. It would be appropriate to note that Section 10 and 11 of the Act of 1955 are provisions pari materia to Section 9 and 10 of the Act of 1897. The principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of K. Venkateswara Rao and anr. vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and Ors. (supra) would thus apply on all fours to the computation of time under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 with reference to Section 10 and 11 of the Act of 1955 for the purpose of filing of election petition. 12. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the there is nothing illegal or perverse vitiating the impugned order dated 22.02.2017. 13. The petitions are without force. Accordingly dismissed. 14. A copy of this order be placed in connected matter.