Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, returning the Election Petition, the same was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, who was having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition, therefore, it is obvious that respondent No.1 herein have initially approached wrong forum. He further contended that there was no cause of action for filing Election LNA, J Petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions under the Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2020 and that the Election Petition is filed beyond the period of limitation. Learned senior counsel specifically contended that the time spent before a wrong forum cannot be condoned in Election Petition by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act and all these aspects were not considered by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the impugned order andhad erroneously dismissed the application filed seeking to reject the Election Petition. He further contended that the Act, 2019, is a self-contained Act, wherein specific time has been prescribed for filing Election Petition and the said Act being a Special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Election Petitions. He further contended that deposit of security amount is mandatory as per Rule 8(1)(ii) of Rules, 2020 and since respondent No.1 herein failed to comply with the said provision, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected on that ground also.

20.1. Learned counsel further contended that originally, Election Petition was filed before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District which has got jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition, more so, in view of reorganisation of revenue Districts in Telangana State by the State Government, hence, the contention of the revision petitioner that Election Petition was filed before a wrong forum i.e., III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District is untenable. She finally LNA, J contended that the revision petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the well-reasoned impugned order of the Principal District Judge,Jogulamba-Gadwal District and hence, this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

(v) Election Petition was re-presented before Principal District Judge, Gadwal District on 10.11.2022 and re-

27. Thus, from 20.02.2020 to 10.11.2022, i.e., the date on which the Election Petition was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, respondent No.1 herein spent a period of 2 years 9 months by pursuing the Election Petition before a wrong forum.

28. Now, it is to be determined as to whether the time spent in wrong forum can be condoned in Election Petitions while computing the period of limitation in filing the Election Petitions.

30. In Shaheed Shahazadha's case (cited supra), the Karnataka High Court, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Devi's case (cited supra), held that since there is no statutory right analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there remains no right for the respondent to seek for condonation of delay spent in wrong forum.

31. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court comes to conclusion that the period spent by pursuing the Election Petitions in wrong forum cannot be condoned.