Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Nandan Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 November, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No.4770 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4770 of 2013
Date of Decision: 22.11.2013
Shiv Nandan Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Sh. Shiv Nandan Singh, petitioner,
in person.
****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (Oral)
Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hisar whereby his plaint has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code") and order dated 15.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Kumar Parveen 2013.11.26 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4770 of 2013 2 trial Court has also been dismissed.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that he was legally entitled to contest the election from 52 Hisar Legislative Assembly Constituency i.e Haryana Vidhan Sabha in 2009 as an independent candidate and order dated 26.09.2009 passed by defendant no.2 rejecting his candidature is illegal, null and void and thus liable to be set aside. The trial Court by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 170 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short "the Act') came to the conclusion that the civil court has no jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or decision given by the Returning officer or any other officer appointed under the Act and ultimately vide impugned order dated 28.05.2012 rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.03.2013. Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard the petitioner in person.
Petitioner submits that such a suit is maintainable, but after some time submits that even if his suit is not maintainable, he may be granted liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the Act and delay be condoned, since the petitioner bonafidely continued to be litigating in a wrong forum.
Kumar Parveen 2013.11.26 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4770 of 2013 3
In view of above, the revision is disposed of with observations that if the petitioner files election petition in accordance with law within one month from today, the period spent in pursuing litigation in wrong forum shall be excluded for the purpose of reckoning limitation period in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge November 22, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.11.26 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh