The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act are not applicable to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. The order of dismissal of W.P.M.P. No. 28739/95 in W.P.M.P.(SR) No. 116983/95 in W.P. No. 8394 of 1989 dated 18-6-1996 passed by the learned single Judge questioned in this appeal having a tinge of dealing with such matters arising out of proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act confronts us with these questions to lay down the correct law settled so far in this regard.
1. Whether (a) the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) and (b) the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the Act) are applicable to the proceedings under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (in short, the Constitution)?
2. If not, what is the effect of R.20, R.24 and R.25 of the Writ Proceeding Rules of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (in short, the Rules)?

2. The Amendment Act of 1976 of the Code was brought into force with effect from 1-2-1977. S.141 of the Code as it existed before the amendment Act of 1976 enabled any Court of Civil Jurisdiction to apply the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits in all its proceedings. But the Amendment Act adding the Explanation to the provision excluded any proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution from the expression 'proceedings'. This is apparent from reading the provision as it exists since 1-2-1977 as herein.
"Miscellaneous Proceedings :
141. The procedure in this 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.
Explanation : In this section, the expression 'proceedings' includes proceedings under O. IX, but does not include any proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution".  (stress imported)
Therefore, in unambiguous terms the provision made the procedure in the Code inapplicable to any proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different courts including our own High Court in A. Adinarayana v. State of A.P. , AIR 1958 Andh Pra 16, the Parliament, by the aforesaid amending Act, introduced the Explanation and statutorily recognised the views expressed by some of the Courts, that writ proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution shall not be deemed to be 'proceedings' within the meaning of S. 141 of the Code as has been noted in Puran Singh v. State of Punjab , 1996 (1) SCALE 380 : AIR 1996 SC 1092 . Therein it was concluded as follows (at p. 1096, para 5 of AIR) : -
"After the introduction of the explanation to S. 141 of the Code, it can be said that when S. 141 provides that the procedure prescribed in the 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", it shall not include a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution ....."
The non - applicability of the procedure provided in the Code to the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution had been settled by the Supreme Court even before the amending Act of 1976 in Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Board, AIR 1974 SC 2105. The pronouncement therein with the following words was affirmed in Puran Singh's case ( at p. 1096) (supra) : -
" ......... S. 141 of the Code, to which reference has been made, makes it clear that the provisions of the Code in regard to suits shall be followed in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction as far as it can be made applicable. The words "as far as it can be made applicable" makes it clear that, in applying the various provisions of the Code to proceedings other than those of a suit, the Court must take into account the nature of those proceedings and the relief sought for ..... After the introduction of the