ORDER : C.M. Poonacha, J. - The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: "i) The declaration of respondent No.4 Kaneeza Fatima W/o Qamar ul Islam, Assembly of Karnataka constituency No.45 Kalaburagi North as elected may be declared as null and void on the account of non disclosure of entire assets and liabilities in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Issue any other order or any other relief for which the petitioner is found entitled to be awarded in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The declaration that the fourth respondent was elected from the Kalaburagi North Constituency i.e., Constituency No.45 to the Legislative Assembly of Karnataka was issued vide notification by the Election Commission of India which was published in the gazette on 14.5.2023. The present petition is filed on 30.6.2023 i.e., after a lapse of 47 days from the declaration of result. 3. The registry is raised an objection that there is a delay in filing the present petition. 4. The petitioner has filed IA.No.1/2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 3 days. 5. Section 81(1) and Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 states as follows: "81. Presentation of petitions.- (1) 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 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any 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 dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates." 86. Trial of election petitions.- (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal (1999) 8 SCC 532 considering as to whether an election petition is maintainable having been filed beyond the period of limitation has held as follows: "7. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal (1999) 8 SCC 532 considering as to whether an election petition is maintainable having been filed beyond the period of limitation has held as follows: "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 straightaway attracted." (emphasis supplied) 7. Having regard to the clear enunciation of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshdeep Arora the question of considering IA.No.1/2023 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the present election petition does not arise. 8. In view of the aforementioned, IA.No.1/2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the election petition stands dismissed as being barred by time.