The provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to revision petitions, and Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to cases where a revision petition is filed against a dead person.

( 1 ) A civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Suit No. 528 of 1962) was filed by Ganga Datt, Attar Singh, Jagat Singh, Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh sons of Debt Sahai in the Court of Senior Sub- Judge, Delhi against Gaon Sabha of Village Burari in which it was prayed that the order of the Revenue Assistant nesting the land set out in that suit in the Gaon Sabha was wrong, illegal, ultra vires and not binding on the plaintiffs. The impugned order was in respect of the vesting of the land which was the subject-matter of dispute in that suit in the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. After the amendment of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 by the insertion of Section 161-B, the Union of India moved an application under the said provision for the setting aside of the decree. This application was dismissed by the Court of Shri H. C. Gupta, P. C. S. . Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi by his order dated 24-1-1967. Aggrieved from that order Union of India filed the present revision petition. In the mean time, however, Ganga Datt died on 26-3-1967. It is an admitted case that the revision petition was filed against Ganga Datt and others subsequent to the death of Ganga Datt. On the revision petition being admitted notices were issued to the present respondents whereupon the process server reported that Ganga Datt was dead. The fact came to the knowledge of the learned counsel for the present petition (Union of India) early in August, 1967. No steps were taken to bring the legal representatives of Ganga Datt on record or to rectify the filing of the revision petition against a dead party till February, 1970. On or about February 5, 1970 an application under Section 151 read with Section 153 and 0. 41, R. 20, Civil Procedure Code was moved in this Court seeking to bring the legal representatives of Ganga Datt on record. This petition has been resisted by the respondents who have urged that the legal representatives be not brought on record. When the matter came up for hearing before one of us (Hon ble the Chief Justice) sitting singly he noticed the contentions of both the parties but considering the point involved to be of some importance directed the civil revision to be listed before a Division Bench. It has been noticed in the referring order that there was a preponderance of authority on the point that the provisions of O. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to revision petitions. So it was observed that the question which arose for determination was whether the petitioner should be allowed to implead the legal representatives of Ganga Datt as parties irrespective of the inordinate delay in making the application for bringing the legal representatives of Ganga Datt on record. It is in these circumstances that the matter has been placed before a Bench of this Court.

( 2 ) MR. N. D. Bali has urged that the provisions of O. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to revision petitions and as such there is no limitation for moving an application for bringing the legal representatives of a dead respondent on record nor does a revision petition abate. He further contends that the provisions of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure would clearly be attracted in the circumstances of the case and inasmuch as the petitioner could proceed against Ganga Datt it can also take proceedings or continue proceedings against persons claiming under Ganga Datt. Lastly, Mr. Bali contended that no fetters by way of limitation can be placed on the revisory jurisdiction of the High Court and once the matter has been brought to the notice of the Court irrespective of whether the parties appear or do not appear or proper parties are before the Court or not the Court must exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Code if the impugned order of the Court below falls within the mischief of any of the three sub-clauses