2005 (4) TMI 542 - SC - Indian Laws

However, the written statement was drafted and kept ready for filing. The registered clerk of the advocate was deputed for filing the same in the Court on the appointed day.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC to the trial of an election petition under Chapter II of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Whether the rules framed by the High Court governing the trial of election petitions override the provisions of CPC.
3. Whether the 90-day time limit prescribed by the Proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is mandatory or directory.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC:
The court examined whether the procedural rules of the CPC apply to election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Act provides a specific and detailed procedure for election petitions, which includes provisions from the CPC "as nearly as may be." This indicates that while the CPC procedures are applicable, they are not to be applied rigidly but with flexibility, considering the special nature of election petitions. The court concluded that the CPC applies to election petitions with flexibility, and not with the same rigidity as in regular civil suits.

2. High Court Rules vs. CPC:
The court considered whether the rules framed by the High Court for the trial of election petitions could override the CPC provisions. It was noted that the High Court has the power to frame rules under Article 225 of the Constitution and Section 129 of the CPC. These rules can govern the procedure of election petitions, provided they do not conflict with the Act or the rules made thereunder. The court found no conflict in this case and concluded that the High Court rules could supplement the CPC provisions, but in case of any irreconcilable conflict, the Act's provisions would prevail.

3. Mandatory or Directory Nature of the 90-Day Time Limit:
The court analyzed whether the 90-day time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is mandatory or directory. The court observed that the provision is procedural, aimed at expediting trials and preventing delays. However, it does not explicitly provide for penal consequences if the time limit is not adhered to. The court held that the provision should be considered directory, not mandatory, allowing courts the discretion to extend the time in exceptional circumstances to avoid grave injustice. The court emphasized that such extensions should not be routine and must be justified with valid reasons.

Conclusion:
1. The trial of an election petition commences from the receipt of the petition and continues until its decision, including the filing of pleadings as part of the trial.
2. The procedure under the CPC applies to election petitions with flexibility, and not rigidly.
3. In case of conflict, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the rules made thereunder prevail over the CPC.
4. The 90-day time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is directory, not mandatory, allowing for extensions in exceptional circumstances with valid reasons.

Final Direction:
The court directed that the written statement filed by the appellant, though beyond the 90-day period, should be taken on record subject to the payment of costs. This decision was made considering the exceptional circumstances presented by the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the written statement was accepted with a cost of Rs. 5000 to be paid to the respondent.

← Previous Next →