(Pronounced by the Chief Justice).
These petitions originally came on for disposal before Govinda Menon J. who considered that they raised an important question as to the applicability of O. 22, C.P.C to the facts of the case, the question being whether when one of a group of trustees who are parties to an appeal dies, the provision of law applicable for bringing on record his successor is O. 22, Rr. 3 and 4 or O. 22, R. 10.
We do not think it necessary to go into this question, because these petitions have been filed in Civil Revision Petitions, and not in appeals. O. 22, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly makes the provisions of that order applicable to appeals and says that the word “plaintiff” shall be held to include an appellant, the word “defendant” a respondent, and the word “suit” an appeal. There is no provision in the Cods of Civil Procedure making provisions of O. 22 applicable to Civil Revisions Petitions. In the Appellate Side Rules of this Court certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code ere made applicable mutatis mutandis to Civil Revision Petitions—vide R. 41-B, but there is no provision making O. 22 applicable to them.
Likewise there is nothing in the Indian Limitation Act making any of the Articles to Sch. I of that Act applicable to C.R Ps. So far as the presentation of such petitions is concerned, this Court has made a rule—R. 41-A(2) under which no application in civil revision shall be presented after 90 days from the date of the order complained of, provided that the Court may, on sufficient cause shewn excuse the delay in presentation. But for this provision there is no other provision prescribing a time limit for any application such as one for bringing on record legal representatives in the place of the deceased respondent in civil revision petitions.
There can be no question of abatement but for the combined application of the provisions of O. 22, Rr. 3 and 4, C.P.C and the material Articles of Sch. I of the Limitation Act. As neither O. 22 nor the Indian Limitation Act applies to C.R Ps. there can be no question of abatement. The decision of a single Judge of this Court in Basawanjaneyulu v. Ramalingayya (1), has been brought to our notice. In that case Stodart J. held that O. 22, Rr. 3 and 4 were applicable to proceedings under S. 115. No authority was cited in support of this conclusion. The learned Judge contents himself with observing that in this Court, at any rate, and in the Calcutta High Court, O. 22 has also been applied to petitions under S. 115. Learned Counsel has not been able to cite to us any instance in which this Court has definitely ruled that O. 22, applies to petitions under S. 115. With respect to the learned Judge, we think his decision was wrong.
The applications to bring on record the legal representatives of the third respondent are ordered.
V.N.J