Ranawat, J.—A revision application was filed by Kanhaiyalal in Ijlas Khas, Dholpur State, against the decision of the then Dholpur High Court dated the 14th December 1942 in its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court refused to interfere in the judgment and decree of the court of the Civil Judge, Dholpur, by which an injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff for removal of a latrine. After the merger of the Dhonpur State into Matsya Union and after the integration of the Matsya Union in the Rajasthan State this revision application came on the file of this court by virtue of Rajasthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) Ordinance, No. XL of 1949, as amended by Ordinance No. XII of 1950. The petitioner has now filed an application on the 19th of November 1951 stating that Mangalsingh who was the plaintiff in the suit had died on the 4th of December 1950. He has prayed that the sons of Mangal Singh may be brought on the record of this case. A rule was issued to the opposite party to show cause why the names of the heirs of Mangal Singh be not substituted in his place. An application has been moved on behalf of the heirs of Mangalsingh opposing the petition on the ground that it has been made with delay. Mr. Madan Gopal Kamthan, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite party, has contended that as Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code also applies to revision applications, the petition for substitution of the names of the heirs of Mangalsingh should be deemed to be barred by limitation. He has put his reliance on the judgments of Anadamoyi Dasi vs. Rudra Mahanti [ 21 I.C. 407 ] and Bhajjulal & others vs. Bechey Singh and others [A.I.R. 1450 All. 665] The Calcutta High Court in Anandamoyi Dasi vs. Rudra Mahanti has held that Order 221 applies to cases in revision also. The Allahabad High Court on the contrary has decided in Bhajjulal & others vs. Bachey Singh and others that even though Order 22 is not applicable to a case in revision, yet a litigant is expected to prosecute his case with due diligence and if he does not take steps for substitution of the names of the legal representatives of a deceased party within reasonable time he should be deemed to have failed to prosecute his case with due diligence and the proceedings should be considered to have abated on this ground. The learned counsel on the opposite side has argued that Order 22 C.P.C. has no application to cases in revision and that as there is no time fixed for the filing of such applications it is open to a party to move the court at his convenience. He has relied on Mohd. Saadat AH Khan vs. Administrator, Corporation of City of Lahore [A.I.R. 1949 Lah. 186.] and Manikam and others vs. M.R. R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and others [A.I. R. 1949 Mad. 435]. According to him as Order 22 has no application to such cases a revision application should not be dismissed on the ground of abatement. Mohd. Saadat Ali Khan vs. Administrator, Corporation of City of Lahore [A.I.R. 1949 Lah. 186.] is a full Bench case and in the judgment it has been observed as follows:—

"Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. is not applicable to revisions. It cannot be read in conjuction with sec. 141 as sec. 141 is so drafted as to enable a court to apply the procedure in regard to suits to such proceedings as are in pari materia with suits and thus original in character. A revision is very much unlike a suit. The procedure provided for suits would be mostly inapt and inappropriate to proceedings in revision. Further, Art. 176 Limitation Act, cannot be made applicable to a revision. Hence where a party going in revision dies pending the revision petition and an application is made by his legal representatives to be brought on record after the expiry of the period of 90 days the petition for revision cannot be dismissed on the ground of abatement."

2. In Manikam and others vs. Mr. R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and others [A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 435] the following observations have been made: —

"There can be no quest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document