STATE OF U.P. Vs. SATYA PRAKASH CHAUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) By means of this petition which was filed on 19/9/2015, the State has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 13/4/2015 passed in Claim Petition No. 1727 of 2012 by which the claim petition of the claimant, was allowed. Subsequently, the claimant-Satya Prakash Chaube-opposite party No. 1 died on 11/12/2020 during pendency of this petition. Thereafter, an application dtd. 15/2/2021 was filed on behalf of the legal heirs/representatives of opposite party No. 1-Satya Prakash Chaube before the petitioner No. 4 informing about death of the opposite party No. 1 and receipt of this application is not denied by the petitioners, in fact, postal receipts of having sent the said application are on record and the petitioner No. 4 vide its letter dtd. 25/2/2021 responded to the aforesaid application of wife of opposite party No. 1 stating therein that till disposal of this writ petition, no action can be taken in the matter. An application dtd. 27/9/2024 has been filed on behalf of wife of opposite party No. 1 in this Court bearing C.M.Application No. IA/5/2024 seeking dismissal of the writ petition as abated.

(3.) During hearing, a question arose as to whether a writ petition abates. In this context, we have perused the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Puran Singh v. State of Punjab 1996 (27) ALR 217 (SC).wherein this issue came up for consideration and Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that in view of the provisions of Sec. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C., 1908') the provisions of Order XXII, C.P.C., 1908 would not apply to writ proceedings but it does not mean that a writ petition can continue against a dead person, therefore, the law was crystallized and harmonized by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to the effect that though the provisions of Order XXII of C.P.C., 1908 did not apply to writ proceedings the consequences of it would be that there would be no automatic abatement of a writ proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in Order XXII of C.P.C., 1908 but writ proceedings cannot continue against a dead person for the reasons which are quite obvious and have been detailed in the said judgment. It was provided that if such an application for substitution of legal heirs/representatives of the deceased party is filed in writ proceedings within a reasonable time then that can be considered by the Court. The Court, however, put in a caveat that it will be unreasonable on part of the Court to implead the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased respondent after lapse of several months or years and then to direct them to contest the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that after the death of the original respondent, the right, title or interest of such respondent has devolved on them. We may in this context refer to relevant extract of aforesaid judgment in the case of Puran Singh (supra) which reads as under:-