LexPURAN SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PURAN SINGH AND ORS. v STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. JANUARY 18, 1996 B [N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Constit11tion of India Articles 226, 227-Wiit proceedings-Representatives of deceased C respondents substitution of-Held, though provisions of Order 22 of Code of Civil Procedure not applicable per se to w1it proceedings or writ appeals, it is incumbent upon petitioner or appellant to get legal representatives of deceased respondent s11bstituted within reasonable time-High Cowt was justified in dismissing writ petition as no steps were taken by petitioners till 14.3.1975 for substinttion of legal represelltatives of respondent who had died on 9.12.1971. D Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by Civil Procedure Code) (Amendment Act, 1976) : S.141, Explanation-Provisions of Codi-Applicability of the proceed- ings under A1ticle 226 of Constitution-Held proceedings under Article 226 of E the Co11Stitutioft have been excluded from the pwview of s.141. F Writ Jwisdiction (Pwijab and Haryana) Rules, 1976: Rule 32-Applicability of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings •mder Article 226 of the Ccm:~titutio1t-Explained. In a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, f '1948, and listed for hearing before th~ High Court on 14.3.1995, the counsel apptltlring for respondent no. 2 tberein informed the High Court tbat the G said respondent had died on 9.12.1971 and, as no steps for bringing bis legal representatives on record had been taken, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition accordingly. In letters patent appeal, tiled by tile appellants, tile Division Bench of the High Court held that as the appellants had not taken steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased-respon- H dent, the writ petition abated. Aggrieved, the appellants tiled the appeal. 730 ' ' • .. • PURAN SINGH v. STATE 731 It was contended for the appellants that the power conferred on the A High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be circumscribed by teclmical procedural rules provided in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for suit or appeal and as such provisions of Order 22 of _the Code for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased defendant in a suit could not be applied to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. It cannot be said that the provisions contained in Order B 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable per se to writ proceedings. C After the introduction of the Explanation to s.141 of the Code, it is clear that when s.141 provides that the procedure prescribed in the 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" it shall not include a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Explanation is more • or less in the nature of proviso, saying that the expression 'proceedings" D ; used in the section shall not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The necessary corollary thereof shall be ihat it shall be open to make applicable the procedure provided in the Code to any proceeding in any court of civil jurisdiction except to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. [739-D, 741-B-C] E Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and Ors., AIR (1974) SC 2105 = [1975) 2 SCR 71, relied on. 2.1. If because of the Explanation to s.141, proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution has been excluded, there is no question of making F applicable the procedure of Code 'as far as it can be made applicable' to such proceeding. [739-E-F) 2.2. Merely on basis of writ Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab & Haryana) Rules, 1976, the provisions of the Code cannot be made applicable to writ proceedings. Apart from thats, 141 of the Code even in G respect of other proceedings contemplates that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall he followed "as far as it can be made applicable". Rule 32 of Writ Rules does not specifically make provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitu- tion. It simply says that in matters for which no provision has been made H f I 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.