9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for substitution of legal representatives in a writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India - whether abated due to delay in filing. 2. Interpretation of s. 141 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in relation to writ proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolved around the application for substitution of legal representatives in a writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner had passed away, and the legal representatives sought to be substituted after a delay following the death. The objection raised was based on O. 22, r. 4 of the C.P.C. and art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provided a 90-day time limit for such applications. The contention was whether the delay in filing the application rendered the writ petition abated. The court had to determine whether the technical rules of limitation applied to writ proceedings under art. 226. 2. The interpretation of s. 141 of the C.P.C. in the context of writ proceedings under art. 226 was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The court examined the applicability of s. 141, C.P.C., which stated that the procedure in the Code regarding suits should be followed in proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. However, the court emphasized that the Explanation added to the amended s. 141 explicitly excluded proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution from its purview. This clarification settled the controversy among various High Courts and affirmed that technical rules of limitation, such as those in O. 22, r. 4, C.P.C., did not apply to writ proceedings. The court held that the special jurisdiction under art. 226 aimed at providing a speedy and efficacious remedy, and importing technical civil procedure rules could defeat the purpose. 3. The court referred to various precedents to support its conclusion, highlighting conflicting views on whether writ proceedings fell under the ambit of civil jurisdiction governed by the C.P.C. The judgment cited cases where it was held that writ proceedings were of a special nature and not akin to civil suits, thereby exempting them from the application of s. 141, C.P.C. The court also noted that the special jurisdiction conferred by art. 226 was extraordinary and required a different approach than regular civil proceedings. By overruling the objection based on delay in filing the application for substitution of legal representatives, the court affirmed that technical rules of limitation did not apply to writ proceedings. 4. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of allowing the application for bringing legal representatives on record, rejecting the argument that the writ petition had abated due to the delay in filing. The judgment clarified that the technical rules of limitation, including those under O. 22, r. 4 and art. 120 of the Limitation Act, did not apply to writ proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution. The court directed the case to proceed for admission, emphasizing the special and extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction exercised under art. 226.
|
