Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1996 (1) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. Substitution of legal representatives in writ proceedings after the death of a respondent. 3. Abatement of writ proceedings due to non-substitution of legal representatives within the prescribed time. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to Writ Proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution The primary issue was whether the provisions of Order 22 of the CPC, which deals with the procedure for substitution of legal representatives upon the death of a party, are applicable to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court noted that prior to the 1976 amendment to Section 141 of the CPC, there was a division of opinion among various High Courts on this issue. Some courts held that writ proceedings were civil proceedings and thus fell under Section 141, while others held that writ proceedings were of a special nature and not subject to Section 141. The 1976 amendment added an explanation to Section 141, explicitly stating that the term "proceedings" does not include proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This amendment clarified that the procedural rules of the CPC, including Order 22, do not automatically apply to writ proceedings. The court emphasized that the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be constrained by the procedural rules of the CPC, as this could defeat the purpose of providing a quick and effective remedy. 2. Substitution of Legal Representatives in Writ Proceedings After the Death of a Respondent Despite the inapplicability of Order 22 of the CPC, the court held that the death of a respondent in a writ proceeding does not allow the petitioner to proceed against a dead person. The petitioner must take steps to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent within a reasonable time. The court suggested that the period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (90 days) could serve as a guideline for what constitutes a reasonable time, but it did not impose automatic abatement of the writ proceedings if this period is exceeded. The court also noted that the High Court has the discretion to condone delays in substitution if sufficient cause is shown. This discretion should be exercised based on well-established principles, ensuring that the delay was not intentional and that the legal representatives are given a fair opportunity to contest the claim. 3. Abatement of Writ Proceedings Due to Non-Substitution of Legal Representatives Within the Prescribed Time In the case at hand, the respondent Bir Singh died on December 9, 1971, but no steps were taken to substitute his legal representatives until March 14, 1975. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that it was not maintainable without the necessary parties. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the appellants failed to take timely action to substitute the legal representatives of Bir Singh, and thus the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The court emphasized that while the procedural rules of the CPC do not apply per se to writ proceedings, the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing necessitate the substitution of legal representatives in a timely manner. The failure to do so can lead to the dismissal of the writ petition, as seen in this case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition due to the appellants' failure to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, Bir Singh, within a reasonable time. The court clarified that while Order 22 of the CPC does not apply to writ proceedings, the principles of natural justice require the substitution of legal representatives to ensure a fair hearing. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|