FATTA Vs. DILLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dillu respondent died on 31st Jeth, corresponding to 13-8-1953. An application to bring his legal representatives on the record was filed on 16-9-1953, i.e., more than 90 days after his death. It was, therefore, urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petition has abated. On behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand, it was argued that in revision, rules regarding abatement do not apply nor is limitation applicable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also been referred to the case law on the point.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent cited--'Basawanjanayulu v. Ramalingayya', AIR 1938 Mad 115 (A), where a single Judge of that High Court held that:

(3.) Following the view of the High Courts of Madras, Lahore and the Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court, I hold that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to revision petitions. Consequently, there is no question of the revision petition abating because the application to substitute Mt. Gulabi in place of Dillu deceased was filed more than 90 days after Dillu's death. The necessary substitution however may be made, since it is not disputed that she is the legal representative of Dillu and limitation apart, no objection has been raised to her name being brought on the record.