Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) Whether provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the writ proceedings, is the prime and important question which falls for our determination in these cases.
(2.) I do not propose to refer facts of the cases which have been set down for hearing before us for answering the aforesaid question, it is not necessary to do so and that each case will have to be gone into on its own facts by the Bench before which the cases will go back, in the light of the answer returned by us to the aforesaid question. But the circumstances which necessitated the reference may be stated. C.W.P. No. 1522 of 1973 came up for hearing before a Division Bench on November 23, 1978, when an argument was advanced on behalf of the contesting respondents that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to writ proceedings as has been provided under rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the writ Rules), and that in view of the provisions of Order 23, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, C.W.P. No. 1522 of 1973 was not maintainable as in respect of the same cause of action the earlier Petition, C.W. No. 1064 of 1973 was got dismissed as withdrawn without obtaining permission to file a fresh petition. In L.P.A. No. 269 of 1979, which came up for hearing before another Division Bench, the objection that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that the writ petition had abated as the sole petitioner had died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation. In other words, the question agitated before the Bench was that provisions of Order 22 applied to writ proceedings.
(3.) On the other hand, the stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner -appellant was that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to writ proceedings. In support of this contention reliance was placed solely on an earlier Full Bench case decided by three learned Judges in Ram Kala v/s. The Assistant Director. Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Rohtak and others. The question that arose in Ram Kola's case was whether article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application for adding or substituting parties to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before the Bench two arguments were raised. The first argument advanced was that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Civil rights of the parties are involved and the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, so far as it can be made applicable to proceedings which partake of the nature of civil proceedings and by virtue of Sec. 141 of the Code and other provisions of the Code, including Order 22, does apply to such proceedings. While repelling the aforesaid argument, it was observed thus : - - The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution relating to civil matter are no doubt civil proceeding but on that ground alone it cannot be held that the Code of Civil Procedure govern such proceedings. this Court may while exercising Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution draw upon the principles enunciated in the Code of Civil Procedure, for, the principle contained therein are by and large based on the principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, it can devise its own procedure for rendering speedy and efficacious justice in the circumstances of the case. Sec. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that the procedure provided in that 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 hut this provision cannot be pressed into service for putting procedural fetters in the way of this Court for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for the adoption of that course would practically strangulate this jurisdiction. Thereafter reference was made to some judicial decisions and ultimately it was held as under : - - In view of the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and the preponderance of opinion in this Court, we hold that Order 22, Code of Civil Procedure, does not apply to the writ proceedings.;