STATE Vs. JAMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for setting aside the abatement of first Appeal No. 24 of 1976 which was dismissed as abated on 30th November, 1981. The order made in that appeal states that the sole respondent in the appeal having died about three years earlier and no steps having been taken by the appellant (State of M.P.) to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, the appeal had abated and, therefore, it was dismissed accordingly.

(2.) This application has been made under S.151 of the Civil P.C. for setting aside the abatement of that appeal. Assuming that such an application lies and it was not necessary to file an application for review for obtaining this relief, the only ground on which this application has been made cannot be sustained. The application has been made on the ground that Order 22 of the Civil P.C. did not apply to the first appeal which was an appeal arising out of a reference made under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention.

(3.) Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act lays down that the award made by the Court in a reference under S.18 of the Act shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgement within the meaning of S.2(2) and S.2(9), respectively, of the Civil P.C. 1908. Section 53 of the Act lays down that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. Section 54 provides for appeals in proceedings before the Court and lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the award of the Court in a reference under S.18 of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, the above appeal was such an appeal against the award of the Court in a reference made under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act treating it as a decree and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were applicable for the disposal of that appeal. On the face of it there appears to be no reason why the provisions of Order 22, Code of Civil Procedure should not apply to such an appeal particularly when Section 141, C.P.C. as amended by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, clearly lays down that the procedure provided in this 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 and the expression "proceedings" has been defined in the explanation thereto as including proceedings under Order 9 but not including any proceedings only under Art.226 of the Constitution.