Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) OUR brother Rajeshwari Prasad has referred to us the following question of law for determination: Whether in view of the amended Rule 38 A in Ch. VIII of the Rules of the Court, it is necessary that an application for substitution in a case under the writ jurisdiction of this Court be made within a period of 90 days or not and whether in the event of default in doing that, the writ petition should be deemed to have abated?.
(2.) THE following rule has been added as Rule 38 -A in Ch. VIII of the Rules of Court: 38 -A. The provision contained in Rules 1 to 6 and 9 of Order XXII and in Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as may be and with necessary modifications and adaptations, apply to special appeals, writ petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution and tax Acts References falling Under Ch. IX, XXII and XXVII of these Rules. In the instant case writ petition No. 1416 of 1963 was filed by one Nand Kishore. He died on 16 -10 -1965 while the writ petition was still pending decision by this Court. On 5 -5 -1966, Sheopujan Tewari, Muneshwar Dev Tewari and Kaliash Tewari filed an application praying that the name of the sole Petitioner, Nand Kishore, be expunged from the array of the parties and in his place, the names of the Applicants aforesaid be substituted.
(3.) SHEOPUJAN Tewari and Muneswar Dev Tewari claimed to be the sons of the deceased, Nand Kishore and Kailash Tewari claimed to be a grand son of Nand Kishore, being the son of a predeceased son, Kaushal Chand Tewari.;