1981 (3) TMI 258 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provisions to writ proceedings.
2. Applicability of Order 22 and Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC to writ proceedings.
3. Impact of the explanation added to Section 141 of CPC by the Amendment Act, 1976.
4. Principles of res judicata in writ proceedings.
5. Applicability of Limitation Act to writ proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of CPC Provisions to Writ Proceedings:
The primary question addressed was whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) apply to writ proceedings. Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976, states, "In all matters for which no provision is made by these rules, the provisions of the Civil P.C. 1908 shall apply mutatis mutandis in so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules." The Court concluded that the provisions of CPC would apply to writ proceedings to the extent they are necessary and not inconsistent with the Writ Rules. This interpretation aims to ensure that procedural guidelines are followed without unnecessarily complicating the process or curtailing constitutional rights.

2. Applicability of Order 22 and Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC to Writ Proceedings:
Order 22 deals with the procedure in case of the death of a party, and Order 23 Rule 1 pertains to the withdrawal of suits. The Court held that these provisions apply to writ proceedings by virtue of Rule 32 of the Writ Rules. Specifically, it was noted that if a writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition, a second petition on the same cause of action is barred. This prevents abuse of the court process and ensures finality in litigation.

3. Impact of the Explanation Added to Section 141 of CPC by the Amendment Act, 1976:
Section 141 of the CPC, as amended, includes an explanation that the term "proceedings" does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed that this explanation merely settled a previous controversy and does not affect the applicability of Rule 32 of the Writ Rules. The explanation clarifies that writ proceedings are special and not covered by the general provisions of Section 141, but it does not negate the specific application of CPC provisions as stipulated by the Writ Rules.

4. Principles of Res Judicata in Writ Proceedings:
The Court examined whether the principles of res judicata apply to writ proceedings. It was held that if a writ petition is dismissed after contest by a speaking order, it operates as res judicata in any subsequent proceeding. However, if a petition is dismissed on grounds such as laches or availability of an alternative remedy, it does not bar other remedies like a suit. Importantly, a second writ petition on the same cause of action is barred even if the first was dismissed by a non-speaking order.

5. Applicability of Limitation Act to Writ Proceedings:
The Court concluded that the Limitation Act does not apply to writ proceedings or the miscellaneous applications filed therein. This is because writ petitions are not suits and are not covered by the Limitation Act. The Court must consider whether applications are filed within a reasonable time, taking into account factors like delay and laches, rather than strictly applying statutory limitation periods.

Conclusion:
The judgment clarified that:
1. CPC provisions apply to writ proceedings as per Rule 32 of the Writ Rules.
2. Orders 22 and 23 Rule 1 of CPC are applicable to writ proceedings.
3. The explanation to Section 141 of CPC does not affect the applicability of Rule 32.
4. Principles of res judicata apply to writ proceedings, barring second petitions on the same cause of action.
5. The Limitation Act does not apply to writ proceedings or related applications.

The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was barred by res judicata, as the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition.