K.J. JOSEPH Vs. K.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT . P1 demand notice served by the K. S. E. B. on the petitioner is challenged in this original petition. Petitioner Sri. K. J. Joseph filed the original petition in his capacity as the Managing Partner of Grand Hotel He died on 26 -5 -93 and the petitioner in CMP No. 14288/94 contends that the partnership firm of which K. J. Joseph was the managing partner was reconstituted and the petitioner in the CMP is the present managing partner. So he prays that he is to be impleaded as the additional petitioner in the original petition. The 4th respondent the Assistant Executive Engineer, of the K. S. E. B. has filed CMP. No. 141119/94 praying for the dismissal of the original petition as abated on the ground that the original petitioner has died and the cause of action does not survive.

(2.) I heard the petitioner's counsel and the standing counsel for the K. S. E. B. The short question is whether the petitioner in CMP 14288/94 is to be impleaded as, additional petitioner be allowed to pursue the original petition. The counsel for the respondent contended that the provisions contained in the C.P.C. are not applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, and therefore, the petitioner in the CMP No. 14288/94 is not entitled to come on record by virtue of the provisions contained in Order XXII of C.P.C. Several decisions were cited by counsel on either side and the matter was elaborately argued.

(3.) IN the full bench decision reported in Teja Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others (AIR 1982 PbH 169), similar questions were considered. That was a case where the question was whether the principles of res judicata would apply to writ proceedings. The Court held that,