Manickam and Others vs MR. R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and Others

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.—These petitions originally came on for disposal before Govinda Menon, J., who considered that they raised an

important question as to the applicability of Order 22 of the CPC 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 Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 or

Order 22, Rule 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.

Order 22, Rule 11 of the CPC 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 CPC making the provisions

of Order 22, applicable to Civil Revision Petitions. In the Appellate Side Rules of this Court certain provisions of the CPC are made applicable

mutatis mutandis to Civil Revision Petitions--Vide Rule 41-B, but there is no provision making Order 22, applicable to them.

Likewise there is nothing in the Indian Limitation Act making any of the Articles to Schedule I of that Act applicable to Civil Revision Petitions.

So far as the presentation of such petitions is concerned, this Court has made a rule--Rule 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 shown 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 Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC and the

material Articles of Schedule I of the Limitation Act. As neither Order 22, nor the Indian Limitation Act applies to Civil Revision Petitions there can

be no question of abatement. The decision of a single Judge of this Court in Basavanjanayulu v. Ramalingayya AIR 1938 Mad. 15 has been

brought to our notice. In that case Stodart, J., held that Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 were applicable to proceedings u/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,

Order 22, has also been applied to petitions u/s 115. Learned Counsel has not been� able to cite to us any instance in which this Court has

definitely ruled that Order 22 applies to petitions u/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.