ORDER

13.05.2024 The application has been filed to bring legal heirs of the deceased Appellant on record. The objection to the application has been raised by the Respondent in reference to the delay in filing of the application. It is submitted that delay in filing application is of 122 days in Appeal No. 229/2011 while in Appeal No. 221/2011, 227/2011 it is almost of nine years and five years respectively. In the Appeal No. 226/2011 & 44/2010 delay is of four years and seven years respectively. It is submitted by efflux of time, the Appeal abated and no application for Condonation of Delay has been filed.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appeal remained pending before the Tribunal having been filed in the year 2010- 2011. It could not be taken up at times in absence of the constitution of the Tribunal and was pursued lastly on the Constitution of the Tribunal in the month of August, 2022. The application for substitution of deceased Appellant was filed immediately thereupon. A reference of Section 72 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has been given for acceptance of the application.

It is submitted that the Appeal is to be continued as per Section 72 of the Act of 2002. The delay, if any, occurred due to non-functioning of the Tribunal for considerable period. It is also submitted that reply to the application has not been filed despite the direction by the Tribunal and otherwise oral arguments have been raised in ignorance of Section 72 of the Act of 2002.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. The applications for substitution of the deceased Appellant with legal heirs have been contested by the Respondent on the ground of delay. The period of delay has been mentioned in the opening para of the order. It shows delay between 4 years to 9 years other than in one Appeal where the application is delayed by 122 days. The Counsel for the Appellant has made reference of Section 72 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which provides continuation of the proceedings in event of death and insolvency of the Appellant. The provision aforesaid permits legal representatives to continue the Appeal in place of a person died during the pendency of the Appeal. The Respondent have not raised an argument that the legal representatives cannot continue the Appeal or the proceedings rather objection is on the delay in submission of application.

Section 72 of the Act of 2002 does not provide limitation and this Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure where order 22 provides for substitution of deceased with legal heirs and if it is read with Article 120 of Limitation Act, it provides limitation of three months from the date of death. The application in these Appeal have been preferred beyond the period of 90 days.

The question for our consideration would be about the application of the provision of CPC. The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure given under CPC but that does not mean that provision of CPC cannot be applied to guide itself to take an appropriate measure to the requirements. Article 120 of the Limitation Act provides three months period for filing application and we find it appropriate to apply the said period of limitation as otherwise this Tribunal is clothed with power to regulate its own procedure. Reason for the application of Article 120 of Limitation Act is to keep the proceedings alive in the hands of one who can pursue otherwise it would be in the hands of a dead person who cannot pursue the litigation and therefore substitution of the deceased is to be made within reasonable time. It is not that application cannot be filed for substitution of deceased after reasonable period of three months but is to be supported by an application for Condonation of delay after explaining the reasons. In the instant case, no application for Condonation of Delay has been filed.

The Learned Counsel for the Responden