The provisions of the CPC apply to the writ proceedings, as per Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976. The provisions of Order 22 and Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC apply to writ proceedings. The Limitation Act does not apply to writ proceedings.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. Whether provisions of the Civil P.C. would apply to the writ proceedings, is the prime and important question which falls for our determination in these cases.

2. I do not propose to refer to the facts of the cases which have been set down for hearing before us as for answering the aforesaid question it is not necessary to do so and that each case will have to be gone into on its own facts by the Bench before which the cases will go back, in the light of the answer returned by us to the aforesaid question. But the circumstances which necessitated the reference may be stated.

3. C.W.P. No.1522 of 1973 came up for hearing before a Division Bench on November 23, 1978, when an argument was advanced on behalf of the contesting respondents that the provisions of the Civil P.C. applied to writ proceedings as has been provided under Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Writ Rules); and that in view of the provisions of O.23, R.1 of the Civil P.C. C.W.P. No.1522 of 1973 was not maintainable as in respect of the same cause of action the earlier petition, C.W. No.1064 of 1973 was got dismissed as withdrawn without obtaining permission to file a fresh petition. In L.P.A. No.269 of 1979, which came up for hearing before another Division Bench, the objection that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that the writ petition had abated as the sole petitioner had died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation. In other words, the question agitated before the Bench was that provisions of O.22 applied to writ proceedings.

4. On the other hand, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant was that provisions of the Civil P.C. did not apply to writ proceedings. In support of this contention reliance was placed solely on an earlier Full Bench case decided by three learned Judges in Ram Kala V/s. Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (1977) 70 Pun LR 100 : (AIR 1977 Punj and Har 87). The question that arose in Ram Kala s case was whether Art.137 of the Limitation Act does or does not apply to an application for adding or substituting parties to a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. Before the Bench two arguments were raised. The first argument advanced was that in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, civil rights of the parties are involved and the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, so far as it can be made applicable to proceedings which partake of the nature of civil proceedings and by virtue of S.141 of the Code and other provisions of the Code, including O.22, does apply to such proceedings. While repelling the aforesaid argument, it was observed thus (at p.89 of AIR) :

"The proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution relating to civil matter are no doubt civil proceedings but on that ground alone it cannot be held that the Civil P.C. governs such proceedings. This Court may while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution draw upon the principles enunciated in the Civil P. C., for the principle contained therein are by and large based on the principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, it can devise its own procedure for rendering speedy and efficacious justice in the circumstances of the case. S.141 of the Civil P.C. lays down that the procedure provided in that Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction but this provision cannot be pressed into service for putting procedural fetters in the way of this Court for exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution for the adoption of that course would practically strangulate this jurisdiction."

Thereafter, reference was made to some judicial decisions and ultimately it was held as under (at p.90 of AIR) :

"In view of the binding precede