9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, 1976. The petition came up before the then Acting Chief justice and Hon'ble M. L. Jain J. on 27th of January, 1976, on which date the court ordered issue of notice to show cause as to why this writ petition be not admitted. On August 18, 1977, the matter again came up before the court. On that date, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the petitioner had died and he asked for granting time to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner on the record. On December 3, 1977, an application was filed by Mr. B. L. Purohit on behalf of the legal representatives. This application was filed under s. 151, C.P.C. In this application, it was stated that the petitioner, Hemraj, had died on August 9, 1977, at j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, which the High Court exercises under art. 226 of the Constitution, is a special type of jurisdiction and not an ordinary type of jurisdiction exercised by a court of civil jurisdiction within the meaning of s. 141 of the C.P.C. and that, consequently, the provisions of O. 22, C.P.C., have no application. He further submitted that the delay in filing the application was not at all inordinate and the court should allow the substitution of the legal representatives and there is no valid justification for treating the writ petition as having abated. The aforesaid contentions resolved themselves into the issue whether an application under art. 226 of the Constitution is a proceeding in a court of civil jurisdiction within the meaning of s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to govern proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution. In Devendra Pratab Narain Rai Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1334, the Supreme Court observed that the bar of O. 2, r. 2, C.P.C., will not apply to a petition for a high prerogative writ under art. 226 of the Constitution. In Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, AIR 1974 SC 2105, the Supreme Court has held that a writ petition is essentially different from a suit and that it would be incorrect to assimilate and incorporate the procedure of a suit into proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution. This decision has been followed in Ram Kala v. Asst. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, AIR 1977 Punj 87 [FB]. In Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1969 Raj 41, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... civil procedure laid down in the Code were to be imported through s. 141 of the Code into these writ proceedings, their very purpose is likely to be defeated by the proceedings being delayed. Putting it in a different manner, the provisions of the C.P.C. do not in terms govern the proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution. This appears to be, in our opinion, the correct proposition even prior to the amendment of s. 141 of the C.P.C. Before the amendment of s. 141, C.P.C., s. 141, C.P.C. was as follows : " The procedure provided 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. " The following Explanation has been added to s. 141. It re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
