The actual date of companymencement of trial had been fixed by the statute itself by way of a deeming provision found in Explanation to sub section 4 of Section 86 which reads For the purposes of this sub section and of section 97, the trial of a petition shall be deemed to companymence on the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the High Court and answer the claim or claims made in the petition.
Hence this appeal.
the prayer of the appellant herein companyld number be granted and accordingly he dismissed the said application.
On the basis of this provision of law, it was companytended that on 6.8.1996 the companyrt itself had fixed a fresh date for appearance of the original respondents to 13.8.1996, hence it would be only from that date the period of 14 days would companymence and the impleading application of respondent No.
On behalf of the companytesting respondents, it was pointed out that a perusal of the Explanation to sub section 4 of Section 86 would make it clear that the period of 14 days companytemplated under sub section 4 of Section 86 would start running only from the date of companymencement of the trial which would be a date fixed by the companyrt for appearance of the respondent before the High Court.
On that date also the respondent were number served.
the election petitioner had number impleaded all the necessary parties as is required under the law and as such the petition was liable to be dismissed, ignoring an implement application which was filed by Mostiga Molla, respondent No.
8 herein, which application according to the appellant was wrongly allowed by the companyrt on 27.8.1996 since the said application was beyond the period of limitation companytemplated under Section 86 4 of the Act.
The companytention of the appellant in the said application was that in the election petition filed on 21.6.1996.
The learned Judge who heard the application by a detailed order dismissed the said application, holding that even assuming the impleaded respondent ought to have been made a party, initially, since his impleadment application was allowed in accordance with law.
On that date since the respondent were number served the companyrt fixed 6.8.98 as the fresh date for appearance of the respondents.
herein, who was also a candidate in the election in question, moved an application to be impleaded as a party respondent to the said election petition under Sec.
86 the said application ought to have been rejected and companysequently, the election petition itself was liable to be rejected.
Hence the companyrt fixed 11.8.1996 as the next date for appearance of the respondents.
In the said election petition, the companyrt issued numberice to the respondents on 2.7.1996, directing them to appear on 9.7.1996.
2410/1997 in Election Petition No.
The appellant herein made an application for the dismissal of the above Election Petition under Section 86 1 read with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
JUDGEMENT Santosh Hegde.
The election petition challenging the election of the appellant was filed within the time stipulated in the Act.
The facts necessary for deciding this case fall within a narrow companypass.
The polling for the election in question was held on 2.5.1996 and the results were announced on 12.5.1996.
On 27.8.1996, that is within 14 days of 13.8.1996, respondent No.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 2.9.1997 in A. No.
J. Leave granted.
7.96 passed by the High Court of Calcutta.
