The provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings arising out of claims for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and therefore the provisions relating to abatement contained therein have also no application to such proceedings.

( 1 ) APPEAL against an award made by the "tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 whereby a sum of Rs. 9000. 00 was awarded to Mrs. Rabia Begum as compensation for the death other son who was killed as a result of an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of a motor truck driven by one Ram Sahai who was impleaded as respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal and Messrs Vanguard Insurance Company Limited with whom, the truck was insured, was admitted to regular hearing on 2-3-19 64 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab at Delhi.

( 2 ) MRS. Rabia Begum died on 7-1-1968. Her legal representatives were however not brought on record within the time prescribed by law. On 15-7-1968 an application was filed by Mr. G. R. Chopra who had previously entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Mrs. Rabia Begum that the sole respondent having died and her legal representatives not having been brought on record the appeal had abated and should therefore be dismissed with costs. This application was numbered as C. M. 852-J2 of 1968. As the application purported to have been filed by a counsel whose authority had apparently come to an end with the death of his client when the case came up before Andley, J. , the learned counsel realised that there was no proper application before the Court. He, therefore, undertook to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the legal representatives of Mrs. Rabia Begum whereupon the learned Judge directed notices to issue to both the applicants, namely, Ram Sahai and Messrs Vanguard Insurance Company Limited and also to Mr. H. S. Dhir, counsel for the appellants, for 3-10-1968. On that day Mr. Dhir appeared for the appellants and asked for time to apply for setting aside the abatement. The application was therefore ordered to be listed for 6-11-1968 for hearing along with the application for setting aside the abatement, if any.

( 3 ) ON 19-10-1968 the appellants filed the application C. M. 1303-J2 of 1968 praying for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Mrs. Rabia Begum. A notice of this application having been issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent a reply was filed on their behalf objecting to the appellants prayer for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement.

( 4 ) MR. H. S. Dhir appearing for the appellants contends that the original application for compensation was filed before the Tribunal by Budhu and his wife Mrs. Rabia Begum. Budhu died during the pendency of the application and on 4-3-1963 a statement was made by Mr. Janki Das Aggarwal, Advocate appearing for both the applicants, that Budhu had died leaving no other heirs except Mrs. Rabia Begum who was therefore competent to pursue the application. As a result of the statement made by the counsel for the applicants, the name of Budhu was struck off from the array of applicants by an order made by the Tribunal on 4-3-1963 and Mrs. Rabia Begum who was already on record, was allowed to continue the application. In the order made by the Tribunal the entire amount of Rs. 9,000. 00 was thus awarded to Mrs. Rabia Begum. When the appeal was filed in this Court the only respondents impleaded therein were Mrs. Rabia Begum and Messrs Shiv Ram Hari Singh who were stated to be the owner of the truck that caused the accident. Mr. Dhir, therefore, submits that the appellants were misled by the statement made by the Advocate appearing for the original applicants before the Tribunal and it was mainly on that account that the appellants did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives of Mrs. Rabia Begum on record within the time allowed by law. Mr. Dhir further submits that it was only after the respondents counsel filed the application C. M. 852-J2/68 that they learnt about Mrs. Rabia Begum having been succeeded by a son and two daughters ; but since the application did not give th