(1.) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 16th March, 1981 passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of Sham singh, the father of the appellants.
(2.) Pursuant to a notification issued by the State Government under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, a scheme was prepared by the authortities in respect of holdings belonging to Sham Singh, the father of the appellants, Bir Singh, father of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, wazir Singh, Respondent No. 4, Om prakash, Respondent No. 5 and others in Village Longowal, Tehsil and any district Sangrur. Objections were filed in respect of the said scheme including on behalf of Sham Singh and others against the proposed allotment of land under the scheme. Those objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal filed on behalf of sham Singh was accepted by the Settlement Officer, whereas the appeals filed on behalf of Bir Singh and others were rejected. Bir Singh filed further appeals against the orders aforesaid before the assistant Director Consolidation of holdings, Rohtak, which were rejected. Thereafter revision applications Wazir singh which were allowed on 15th october 1965 by the Additional Director, consolidation, who ordered the changes in the allotment of land. Sham singh, the father of the appellants filed the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil Writ no. 931 of 1966) for quashing the order dated 15th October 1965 passed by the additional Director, Consolidation of holdings. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Sham Singh died and appellants were substituted in his place. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned single Judge on 14th March 1975 the counsel appearing for bir Singh who was Respondent No. 2 to the said writ petition informed the court that the said Bir singh had died on 9th December 1971 and no application for bringing his legal representative had been made. It was pointed out that the impugned orders in the writ petition were in favour of Bir Singh and as his legal representative had not been substituted, the writ petition ought to be dismissed. The appellants were not in a position to contradict the aforesaid assertion in respect of the death of Bir Singh, respondent No. 2. to the said writ petition. As such, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed saying that as Bir singh had died on 9th December 1971 and no application for bringing the legal representative of the deceased had been made, the writ petition was not maintainable in absence of necessary parties. The Letters Patent Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed saying that as the appellants had not taken any steps to bring the legal representative of aforesaid Bir Singh who was respondent to the writ petition, the writ petition had abated. In this connection, reliance was placed by the Division Bench, to the Judgment of five Judges Bench of the same court in the case of Teja Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, AIR 1982 punjab and Haryana 169, where it had been held that Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') was applicable to the proceeding under Article 226 of the constitution of India, in view of the writ Rules framed by the said High court.
(3.) On behalf of the appellants it was urged that Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has vested extra-ordinary power in the High Court, and the procedure thereof cannot be regulated or controlled by the provisions of the code because the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has to be exercised for the ends of justice taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. That power cannot be circumscribed by technical procedural rules regarding suit or appeal as provided under the Code.