1. This is an application for bringing the legal heirs representatives of respondent Sain Dass on record.

2. Objections have been filed against the application, wherein it is contended that the respondent Sain Dass has died on August 12, 1987 whereas this application has been filed on February 18, 1988 after the expiry of prescribed period of limitation of six months, as provided under Article 176 of the Limitation Act and. as such the application was not maintainable.

3. Before adverting to the plea of limitation raised by the respondents, it would by appropriate to briefly-sum up the facts giving rise to revision petition No: 16 of 1987 in which the present CMP has been filed. The record reveals that one Bahadur Chand was an appellant in civil appeal pending disposal in the court of District Judge, Jammu and after his death the present petitioner Harbans Lal filed an application for being brought on record as legal representative of deceased Bahadur Chand on the basis of a Will. After examining the validity of the Will, the learned District Judge, Jammu vide his order dated December 29, 1986 held that the will in question was not a valid document and, as such, the present petitioner Harbans Lal could not be brought record as legal representative of the deceased Bahadur Chand (appellant).

4. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner has filed Revision Petition No 16/1987 which is pending disposal in this court. During the pendency of the said revision petition, respondent No : 1 (Sain Dass) died and the petitioner has filed this application for bringing his legal representatives on record. This application is opposed on the ground that the same is barred by time as it has been filed after the expiry of six months from the date of death of respondent Sain Dass.

An interesting question that falls for determination is whether this application can be held to be barred by time in terms of the provisions of Article 176 of the Limitation Act or whether the applicant could fall back upon the residuary period of limitation, provided under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. Before proceeding further it would be beneficial to extract the relevant Articles as under:-

176 :	"Under the same Code to have the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or of a deceased appellant made a party.	Six months	The date of the death of the deceased plaintiff or appellant."
181 :	Application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or by section 48 of C.P.C.	Three years	When the right to apply accrue"

5 The learned counsel for the applicant has come up with a very interesting argument that Article 176 of the 1st schedule appended to Limitation Act providing six months period of limitation for making an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff/ appellant on record was not attracted in case of a revision petition He submitted that a revision was not an original proceeding .like a suit or an appeal and the words deceased plaintiffand deceased appellant used in Article 176 were indicative of the legislative intent that the period of limitation of six months prescribed therein was only applicable to suit and appeals and not to revisions. He elucidated the contention by pointing out that while periods of limitation had been provided under the Limitation Act for different kinds of suits and appeals, no such period had been provided in case of a revision. He , therefore, urged that any application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record in a revision petition would fall under Article 181 which provides three years period from the date when the right to apply accrues,

6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sharma placed reliance on Section 141 and Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC. He urged that under section 141 CPC was applicable to all types of proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. Similarly, any application for bringing the legal representa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document