MOHD KHAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pedency of the writ petition Rasool and Rishi respondent Nos 2 and 3, have died. An application was made for bringing on record the legal representatives of the two deceased respondents. An objection was taken that the application was made beyond the statutory time prescribed for filling an application for substitution under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Parties were put to proof. After recording the evidence in the case, it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for substitution is time barred in as much as the deceased had died much before the application should have been made. The argument, however, raised by Mr Raina is that the petition would not abate in consequence of the death of the deceased respondents. The argument is founded on the assumption that Order 22 Cr. P. C. does no t apply to writ petition.

(2.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and I am of the opinion that the argument is devoid of any merit. The petitioner was required to make an application for substituting the representatives of the deceased respondents under order 22 C. P. C. by virtue of Section 141 C. P. C. the procedure prescribed in the Code applies to all the proceedings of civil jurisdiction. There is no gain saying the fact that writ proceedings are also proceedings of original jurisdiction, and, therefore, order 22 C. P. C. applies. As the petitioner has failed to move the application in time, therefore, the effect of that would be that the writ petition has abated, as against Rasool and Rishi, the deceased respondents. But as these respondents were necessary parties, therefore, the writ petition has abated into. In view of this the writ petition having abated, is dismissed as such.