M.R.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THE facts of the case are given in the elaborate order of reference prepared by my Lord the Chief Justice and need not be repeated all over again.
(2.) THE decision of the case depends upon the answer to the following ques-tion:-Whether Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act (36 of 1963) does or does not apply to an application for adding or substituting parties to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ? Order XXII, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, lays down that where one of two or more defendants die and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application given in that behalf shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. These provisions have been made expressly applicable to appeals by virtue of Rule 11 of Order 22, Code of Civil Procedure. However, there is no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure making the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4, of the said Code applicable to the revision petitions. Consequently, this Court has held in a series of judgments that Order XXII of the Code does not apply to the revision petitions. See in this connection Jwala Singh Prem Singh v. Malkan Nasirpur, AIR 1958 Punj 171; Ram Saran Dass Tara Chand v. Ram Richhpal L. Mannu Lal, AIR 1963 Punj 206; and Smt. Dhan Devi, v. Bakhshi Ram, AIR 1969 Punj and Har 270.
(3.) IT is, however, argued 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 Section 141 of the Code and other provisions of the Code including Order XXII, does apply to such proceedings.;