Section 5 of Limitation Act Does Not Apply to Filing of Election Petitions

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Omkar Gupta v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development, Lucknow and 3 Others (2025) held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions filed under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. 

What was the Background of Omkar Gupta v. State of U.P. (2025) Case? 

• The respondent filed an election petition under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 challenging a municipal election result. 
• Along with the election petition, the respondent filed an application for condonation of delay of 17 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 
• The application for condonation of delay was allowed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.-I), Ambedkar Nagar. 
• The petitioner, Omkar Gupta, challenged this order allowing condonation of delay before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 
• The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which permits condonation of delay in filing suits, applies to election petitions filed under the Municipalities Act, 1916. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that although an election petition filed under Section 20 of the Municipalities Act is not a suit, it is an original proceeding which has to be decided in the manner provided for decision of suits. 
• Justice Vidyarthi observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits, and for this reason, it would not apply to filing of election petitions under the Municipalities Act, 1916. 
• Regarding the specific application of the Limitation Act, the Court observed that the proviso to Section 23 of the Municipalities Act provides that sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act shall apply for determining limitation of an election petition. 
• The Court reasoned that when the legislature has specifically provided for application of a particular provision of the Limitation Act (Section 12(2)) and has not made other provisions applicable to it, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply to election petitions filed under the Municipalities Act. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Suman Devi v. Manisha Devi, which was followed by the Allahabad High Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rambhual Nishad, to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply to election petitions filed under the Representation of the People Act. 
• Since the provisions of the Representation of the People Act are similar to the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the Court held that Section 5 would not apply to election petitions filed under the latter Act. 
• Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the election petition before the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.-I), Ambedkar Nagar was dismissed. 

What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 

About: 

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 enunciates the principle of condonation of delay. It states: 

“Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period” 

• Section 5 of this Act states that, to seek condonation of delay a party must show the “sufficient cause” of the delay. 

Condonation of Delay: 

• Condonation of delay is a discretionary remedy exercised by courts wherein, upon an application made by a party who wishes to have an appeal or application admitted after the prescribed period, the court may condone (overlook) the delay if the party provides a “sufficient cause” that hindered them from filing the appeal or application on time. 

Sufficient Cause: 

• Sufficient cause means there should be adequate reasons or reasonable ground for the court to believe the applicant was prevented from proceeding with the application in a Court of Law. 
• Section 5 allows the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases on sufficient cause being shown for the delay.  
• In State of West Bengal v. Administrator (1972):  
  • The Supreme Court held that the extension of time is a matter of concession and cannot be claimed by the party as a matter of right.  
  • It is difficult and undesirable to precisely define the meaning of sufficient cause. It must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case. However, a sufficient cause should fulfill the following essentials:  
    • It must be a cause which was beyond the control of the party invoking it.  
    • He must not be guilty of negligence.  
    • His diligence and care must be shown.  
    • His intention must be bonafide.