JAYAPRAKASAN AND ANR. Vs. VISALAKSHY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M.Ps. 3711 of 1990 and 3712 of 1990 are petitions filed to substitute the Petitioners as the legal representatives of deceased Ghathunhi (original revision Petitioner) in the above C.R.Ps. The other petitions are tiled to set aside abatement and for condonation of delay.

(2.) THE revision Petitioner died on 1st May 1988. The petitions for substitution of the legal heirs were filed on 20th November 1990. The petitions to set aside abatement and the petitions to condone delay were filed on 2nd January 1991 and 7th January 1991.

(3.) COUNSEL relied on Munney Khan v. Kaushilya Devi : A.I.R. 1981 All 240 in support of his contention that for an application for substitution of legal representatives in the place of the deceased Petitioner period of limitation of 90 days prescribed under Article 120 is not applicable. It is argued that in a petition filed under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for substitution and that too when the matter is pending before the High Court (revisional court) it is highly necessary for the ends of justice and certainly for a proper decision that the High Court should allow substitution or addition of parties and there can be no question of limitation in this respect. With great respect, I cannot agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court as it has not properly considered the specific provisions under Order XXII Code of Civil Procedure and Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The argument is on the basis that Order XXII Code of Civil Procedure applies to suits and by virtue of Rule 11 to appeals and that no specific provision is there with regard to revisions. The above argument is devoid of merit in view of Section 141 Code of Civil Procedure which states that the procedure prescribed in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction. It is not possible to hold that Rules as to impleading and abatement do not apply as much to proceedings in revision as to appeals. Impleading petition and petition to set aside abatement are proceedings before the civil court and by virtue of Section 141 provisions under Order XXII are made applicable to proceedings before the revisional court also. Moreover the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction and it cannot be held that the provisions of Order XXII are inapplicable to civil revision petitions pending before the High Court. In this context it is useful to refer to Sankar Ramachandra v. Krishnaji : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1 : 1969 (2) S.C.C. 74 where the Supreme Court held: