The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern substitution of legal representatives in suits and appeals, apply to civil miscellaneous proceedings by virtue of Section 141 of the Code. The period of limitation for making an application for substitution in a civil miscellaneous proceeding is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues, as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Is there any difference in the law governing substitution of a deceased plaintiff/defendant in a civil suit and/or appellant/respondent in a civil appeal, on the one hand, and an applicant/opposite party or petitioner/opposite party, on the other hand, in a Civil Miscellaneous Proceeding ? This is the core question, this revision which has been filed against the order, dated 16.08.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc. (J) (Arb) No. 199/2002, arising out of T.S. (Arb.) No. 51/1994, has raised.

2. Let me, first, put, in brief, hereinbelow the facts giving rise to this revision :

The Award arising out of a contract agreement, entered into between the parties, was filed by the Arbitrator in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Suit (Arb) No. 51/1994, Sri K.L. Gupta (since deceased) who was one of the parties affected by the Award, filed an application in the Court below for setting aside the said Award. This application was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 199/2002. While this misc. application was pending for disposal, the applicant died on 02.04.2002. The present revision petitioners, namely, the widow of the said deceased as well as their sons and daughters, filed an application in the Court below seeking to get themselves substituted in place of the said deceased. No valid objection was, admittedly, filed by the opposite party to the prayer for substitution so made ; but upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Court below passed the order, dated 16.08.2002, aforementioned dismissing the application for substitution on the ground that since no application for substitution had been made within the period of 90 days, which was the period of limitation for making an application for substitution, the miscellaneous application aforementioned stood abated. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants have, now, approached this Court with the help of this revision petition.

3. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. R.D. Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

4. It has been submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, that Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") embodies provisions for substitution of legal representatives in civil suits and appeals and period of limitation for making such application is 90 days from the date of death of the party concerned, but so far as civil miscellaneous applications are concerned, such as, the one, which the learned Court below had considered, the limitation of 90 days cannot be applied inasmuch as the Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for substitution in a civil miscellaneous proceeding. Support for this submission is sought to be derived by Mr. Lall from the case of Smt. Sayeeda Begam and Anr. v. Ashraf Hussain and Ors. As no period of limitation, contends Mr. Lall, is prescribed for an application seeking substitution in an Arbitration proceeding, the learned Court below fell into error in holding that the application for setting aside the Award filed by deceased K.L. Gupta stood abated by efflux of time. The order, so passed, according to Mr. Lall, is wholly without jurisdiction and the impugned order amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction validity vested in the learned Court below and deserves to be interfered with.

5. Controverting the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sharma has contended that with the help of Section 141 of the Code, provisions of the Code apply to miscellaneous proceedings as well ; and, hence, the provisions of Order XXII, which govern substitution of the legal representatives in the suits and appeals, shall, according to Mr. Sharma, also be applicable with equal vigour to miscellaneous proceedings and in this view of the matter, the learned Cour