KAILASH · v. NANHKU· & Ors.

Whether the rules framed by the High Court governing the trial Of election petitions would override the provisions of CPC and permit a written statement being filed beyond the period prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC; and (3) Whether the time limit of 90 days as prescribed by the Proviso appended to Rule I of Order VIII of the CPC is mandatory or directory in nature; Allowing the appeal, the Court c D .HELD : 1.

The trial of an election petition commences from the date of the receipt of the election petition by the Coqrt and continues till the date of its decision. The filing of pleadings is one stage in the trial of an election petition. The power vesting in the High Court to adjourn the trial from time to time (as far as practicable and without sacrificing the E expediency and interests of justice) includes power to adjourn the hearing in an election petition affording opportunity to the defendant to file written statement. The availability of such power in the High Court is spelled out by the pro.visions of the Represerita.tion of the People Act, 1951 itself and Rules made for purposes of that Act and a resort to the provisions of the F CPC is not called for. [310-C-D) Duryodhan v. Sitaram and Ors., AIR (1970) Allahabad 1 FB and Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Election Tribunal, Jabalpur and Anr., AIR (1958) MP 168, approved. ' _1.' G Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, [1957) SCR 370; Om Prabha Jain v. Gian Chand and Anr., [1959) Supp. 2 SCR 516 and Dipak Chandra Ruhidas v. Chandan Kumar Sarkar, 12003) 7 SCC 66, referred to.

1.

Sub-section (6) of Section 86 of the Act would empower the High Court trying an election petition to adjourn the trial beyond the following H day if necessary and for reasons to be recorded. The filing of a written KAILASH v. NANHKU 291 statement being a stage in the trial of an election petition, this provision A would empower the High Court to grant a reasonable time for filing of a written statement though for reasons to be recorded. In view of Rules 5 and 12 framed under Article 225 for purposes of the special Act, the High Court is not powerless to extend the time for filing the written statement simply because the time limit for filing the written statement within the B allowance permitted by the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has come to an end. (300-G; 302-D-E)