NARAIN SINGH Vs. D K DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned Order.

(2.) Learned tingle Judge by the impugned order has dismissed an application moved by the appellants seeking their impleadment as petitioners in place of the original petitioner, who was their father, who expired on 5.4.1985. It was alleged that they were not aware of pendency of the petition and as such application could not be filed earlier. Learned Single Judge while dismissing their applications though duly noticed the decision of Supreme Court cited at the Bar by learned counsel for the appellants in Sital Prasad Saxena (Dead) by L. Rs. v. Union of India & Others, 1985(1) SCR 660 to the effect that provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet proceeded to dismiss the said application on the ground that the appellants admittedly are the sons of the deceased; they were major on the dale when the petitioner died in 1985 and had moved the same after 13 years, therefore, there was no ground to condone the delay.

(3.) Admittedly procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits by virtue of the explanation, which was inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, is not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226, of the Constitution of India. As such, there is no question of applicability of technical rule of abatement of a petition on the death of petitioner and as provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable, there is also no question of applying for condonation of delay. The object in excluding writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the perview of Section 141 of the Code in view of the explanation inserted thereto is not to encumber with formal procedure of civil suits, but to adhere to the quick and inexpensive remedy provided by the framers of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a special and extraordinary jurisdiction and when Section 141 excludes the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution would as a natural corollary result in non-application of the technical rules contained in Order 22 of the Code. As such, the reasonings of learned Single Judge while dismissing the application are not sustainable in law. In the writ petition, rule was issued on 4.12.1980. On 15.1.1981 operation of the impugned order passed by the Finance Commissioner on 16.6.1980 was stayed till decision of the writ petition. Status quo was directed to be maintained as regards possession. The writ petition thereafter remained pending and did not come up for hearing. As such, there was no question of abatement of proceedings.