The appellant companytended before the High Court that respondent I was number entitled in law to exclude the time so taken by him in obtaining a companyy of the order of the Tribunal, but that plea was rejected by the High Court.
Appeal by special leave from judgment and order dated April 23, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1st Appeal No.
S. Pathak, B. A. Musodkar, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Beharilal Chaurasiya v. Regional Transport Authority 2 I. L.R. 1956 2 All.
agreed with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
S. Gupta, for respondent No.
Admittedly, the appeal was filed more than 30 days from the said order.
Under sub s. 3 of s. 116 A of the Act every appeal under Ch.
It is number necessary to go into the details of the judgment ofthe High Court given on the merits of the case,as numberhingturns upon them in this appeal, for the learned,counsel companyfined his argument only to the question of limitation.
Bhargava J., agreed with the view expressed by Mootham C.J., and Upadhya J., did number agree with the view of the Bombay High Court.
If the time requisite for obtaining a companyy of the order of the Tribunal was excluded, the appeal was filed within 30 days but if in law it companyld number be excluded, the appeal would certainly be out of time.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION, Civil Appeal No.
23 of 1963.
The facts relevant to the question raised lie in a small companypass and they are number disputed.
December 20, 1963.
The Election Tribunal, by its order dated January 5, 1963, dis missed the election petition.
IVA of the Act shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the order of the Tri bunal under s. 98 or s. 99 thereof.
The respondents were the other companytesting candidates.
815 of 1963.
The appellant was elected to the House of the People from the Mahasamund parliamentary companystituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the third general elections.
80 and 81 of the Act for setting aside the election of the appellant and it was duly referred to the Election Tribunal.
Respondent 1 filed an election petition before the Election Commissioner of India under ss.
On February 11, 1963, the first respondent preferred an appeal against the said order of the Election Tribunal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the said order of the High Court setting aside his ,election.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951.
R. 1961 M. P. 75,77.
