Important Point—There is no question of automatic abatement of writ proceedings.

C.L. Soni, J.

1. In these two applications, though filed in different petitions by different learned advocates, learned advocates appearing in both the applications have made common grievance as regards insistence of the office to file separate applications- present applications for condonation of delay occurred in bringing heirs of the deceased parties in both the petitions.

2. Learned advocates Mr. Salil Thakore and Mr. Dhiraj Patel for the applicants submitted that pending the petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, either arising from the orders made by the Civil Court in the civil suit or from orders made by any authority or Court in the proceedings under any other Statute, if any of the parties to the petition dies, though action required to bring heirs of such deceased party on record of the petition is to be taken within reasonable time, however, such action is not governed by Order-22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'). They drew the attention of the Court to Section 141 of the Code so as to submit that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not governed by the provisions of the Code and therefore, procedure contemplated under Order-22 of the Code will have no application to the proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They submitted that equally such procedure under Order-22 of the Code shall not apply to the proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They submitted that provisions of limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act also do not apply to the proceedings filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India before this Court as no limitation is prescribed for filing such proceedings before this Court. They have relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sudama Devi v. The Commissioner and others reported in AIR 1983 SC 653 and in the case of Puran Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1092. It is their submission that the applicants are required to explain the delay occurred in making application for bringing heirs of deceased party in the proceeding filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in such application itself. However, no separate application is required for such purpose so as to seek condonation of delay.

3. The Court having heard learned advocates for the applicants and having considered the provisions of Section 141of the Code with Article 120 of the Limitation Act and having gone through the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-referred cases finds that Order-22 of the Code will not strictly apply to the proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is required to note that for filing proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, no period of limitation is prescribed though such proceedings are required to be filed within reasonable time period. Therefore, provisions for limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act to the proceedings filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India will have no application. Similarly, if any application is filed in proceedings filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, especially the application for bringing heirs of the deceased party on record of such proceedings, neither provisions for Order-22 of the Code nor Article 120 of the Limitation Act will apply. It will, therefore, not be required to seek condonation of delay occurred in late filing of the application for bringing heirs of the deceased party on record of the proceedings filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the case of Smt. Sudama Devi v. Commissioner and others reported in (1983)2 SCC 1 [AIR 1983 SC 653], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed as under:--

"We are of the view that so far as writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, there can be no hard and fast