An application was thereupon filed by the first respondent purportedly under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act submitting inter alia that if the limitation for filing the election petition had expired, the period spent between the filing of the earlier petition and its withdrawal may be excluded since the first respondent was bona fide espousing her remedies.
2 By a judgment dated 19 July 2016 the Trial Court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the fresh election petition was presented after the expiry of 30 days prescribed for the institution of an election petition.
On 10 February 2016, the first respondent filed an Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date 2018.08.21 113410 IST Reason Election Petition namely, Civil Suit 9/2016 CS 1086/2016 under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 challenging the election of the appellant.
The application was allowed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on the same day and the first respondent was permitted to withdraw the election petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition.
The Civil Revision has been dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court dated 11 August 2017.
Upon service of the election petition, the appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that the first respondent had failed to present it in person as required by Section 176.
The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the election petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
The results of election were declared on 28 January 2016.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The appellant and the first respondent companytested elections for the post of Ward Councilor, from Ward No 18 of the District Council of Mahendergarh.
On 1 March 2016, the first respondent moved an application for withdrawal of the election petition.
Subsequently on 2 March 2016 the first respondent filed a second election petition, Civil Suit 361/2016 CS 1106/2016 .
The first respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge, Narnaul on 18 January 2017.
The appellant was declared Signature Not Verified to be the elected candidate.
Notice was issued on the application.
The appellant challenged the order of the District Judge before the High Court.
The respondent filed her reply.
The appellant opposed the application.
