MANICKAM Vs. MRRMRAMANATHAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions originally came on for disposal before Govinda Menon, J., who considered that they raised an important question as to the applicability of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code to the facts of the case, the question being whether when one of a group of trustees who are parties to an appeal dies, the provision of law applicable for bringing on record his successor is Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 or Order 22, Rule 10.

(2.) We do not think it necessary to go into this question, because these petitions have been filed in Civil Revision Petitions, and not in appeals. Order 22, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly makes the provisions of that order applicable to appeals and says that the word " plaintiff" shall be held to include an appellant, the word " defendant " a respondent, and the word " suit "an appeal. There is no provision in the Civil P. C. making the provisions of Order 22, applicable to Civil Revision Petitions. In the Appellate Side Rules of this Court certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are made applicable mutatis mutandis to Civil Revision Petitions--Vide Rule 41-B, but there is no provision making Order 22, applicable to them.

(3.) Likewise there is nothing in the Indian Limitation Act making any of the Articles to Schedule I of that Act applicable to Civil Revision Petitions. So far as the presentation of such petitions is concerned, this Court has made a rule--Rule 41-A(2) under which no application in civil revision shall be presented after 90 days from the date of the order complained of, provided that the Court may, on sufficient cause shown excuse the delay in presentation. But for this provision there is no other provision prescribing a time limit for any application such as one for bringing on record legal representatives in the place of the deceased respondent in Civil Revision Petitions.