JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Applications arise out of [CASE NUMBER]. They came up for disposal before a learned Single Judge of this Court. He has referred these applications to a larger Bench because he felt that there was a conflict of opinion between two Division Bench decisions on the question whether an application in revision would abate if no substitution application was made within ninety days of the date of death of a deceased party. In the [PRECEDENT], a Division Bench took the view that since there is no period of limitation prescribed for an application for substitution in revision, it can be made at any time so long as the application in revision is pending. A contrary view was taken by another Division Bench of Oudh Chief Court in Khuda Bux v. Maha Nand Tewari, AIR 19[SECTION]8 Oudh 8[SECTION]. It was held that if after the admission of a revision application one of the parties dies and an application to bring his legal representatives on record is not presented within a reasonable time (which in the case of such an application is the time mentioned in [SECTION], [ACT]), the revision application will abate in the sense that the proceeding shall cease unless good cause is shown for the delay. This is how these two applications have come up before this Bench.
2. The material facts to bring out the controversy involved in these two applications lie in a narrow compass. The applicants filed a suit in the Court of [ENTITY] for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering with their possession over an agricultural plot. The claim was resisted by the opposite parties on grounds inter alia that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Munsif framed a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. He accordingly ordered the return of the plaint to the applicants for presentation to the proper Court. The applicants sought to challenge that order by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal, but the appeal failed. The petitioners thereupon filed a revision before this Court which was numbered as [CASE NUMBER].
3. It appears that during the pendency of the Revision, [ENTITY] (Opposite Party No. 10) died, and Miscellaneous Application No. [SECTION]130 of 1970 to bring his heirs on the record was filed by the applicants on 10th July, 1970. In this application, supported by an affidavit, it was alleged that [ENTITY] died on 13th April, 1970. The opposite parties resisted the application and alleged in the counter-affidavit that [ENTITY] had died on 31st December, 1969. In view of this allegation and counter-allegation with regard to the date of the death of [ENTITY], an issue was remitted to the Court below to find out whether [ENTITY] died on 13th April, 1970 or on 31st December, 1969. The Court below returned the finding that he died on 31st December, 1969. The applicants were permitted to file an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for the condonation of delay, whereupon they filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1[SECTION]638 of 1970 under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
In order to appreciate the point involves in the case it would be convenient at this stage to refer to relevant provisions of [SECTION], [ACT] and the relevant Articles of [ACT].
[SECTION]. [SECTION] provides for bringing the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on the record when the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, and [SECTION] thereof provides the penalty for not bringing the heirs of the deceased plaintiff on record within the period of limitation prescribed. [SECTION], [ACT] provides for substitution of a deceased defendant where the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, and [SECTION] thereof provides penalty for not bringing the heirs of the deceased defendant on record within the time prescribed by law. Obviously [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] relate to substitution of plaintiffs and defendants in a suit. But by virtue of [SECTION] of [SECTION] are made applicable to the appellants and respondents in appeal as well. [SECTION] reads thus:
"In the application of this Order to appeals so far as may be, the word 'plaintiff' shall be held to include an appellant the word 'defendant' a respondent, and the word 'suit' an appeal."
These rules, however, do not apply to revisions. Now the question arises whether any period of limitation has been prescribed in the [ACT] for an application to bring the heirs of a deceased party on record in a revision application.
5. [SECTION] of the Schedule of the old [ACT], read thus:
Descriptionof suit.
Periodof Limitation.
The date from which period begins to run.
Under the same Code to have the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased appellant made a party.
Ninety days The date of the death of the deceased plaintiff or appellant.
[SECTION] of the Schedule attached to the new [ACT] reads thus :
Under the [ACT] to have the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent made a party.
Ninety days The date of death of the plaintiff, appellant, defendant or respondent, as the case may be.
Thus limitation has been prescribed for bringing on record the heirs of deceased plaintiff or defendant in a suit, and the deceased appellant or respondent in an appeal, and if no application is made within the said period, the penalty contemplated by [SECTION] would ensue. If a similar period of limitation has been prescribed by the [ACT] for bringing the heirs of a deceased party on record even in revision applications, the penalty analogous to that contemplated by [SECTION], [ACT] would be attracted to revisions as well. The crucial question for determination, therefore, is whether any period of limitation has been prescribed by the [ACT] with regard to revisions also.
6. In [PRECEDENT], in Ram Datt Singh v. Ajodhia Singh, AIR 1952 All [SECTION][SECTION]6, in Syed Ali Athar v. Syed Kalbe Haider, 1955 All LI 5[SECTION] and in Khuda Bux Khan v. Mahanand Tewari, AIR 19[SECTION]8 Oudh 8[SECTION], it was held that [SECTION], [ACT] does not apply to revision applications, nor was there any period of limitation prescribed for an application for substitution of names of legal representatives in place of a deceased party in a revision application, yet it was held that the application for bringing the heirs should be moved within a reasonable time.
The above cases are not of much help; the point in question has now been concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 196[SECTION] SC 752, Bombay Gas Co. v. Gopal Bhiva, wherein it was held that [SECTION] prescribed three years' period of limitation in respect of applications under the [ACT] for which no period of limitation was provided elsewhere.
7. It may be pertinent to read [SECTION] of the old [ACT] and [SECTION] of the new Act ([ACT]):
Description of application Periodof Limitation Time from which period begins to run.
Applications For which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere inthe Schedule or by [SECTION] of the [ACT].
Three years When the right to apply accrues.
187. Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division.
Three years.
When the right to apply accrues.
In [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court, while dealing with [SECTION] of the [ACT], observed:
"That Article has, in a long series of decisions of most, if not all, of the High Courts, been held to govern only applications under the [ACT]. It may be that there may be divergence of opinion even within the same High Court, but the preponderating view undoubtedly is that that article applies only to applications under the Code."
Now, the next question that requires consideration is whether [SECTION] of the new [ACT] also covers an application under the [ACT]. Substantially the language of [SECTION] of the old [ACT] is pari materia with the language of [SECTION] of the new [ACT]. If [SECTION] applies to applications under the [ACT], we see no reason why [SECTION] of the new [ACT] should not apply to applications under the [ACT]. It may or may not apply to applications under other Acts, but there can be no manner of doubt about its applicability to applications under the [ACT]. In [CASE NUMBER] a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the residuary [SECTION] covers in its ambit applications and objections under special laws or any other law. The Article should not be interpreted narrowly so as to keep it confined to applications under the [ACT].
Even if there be some doubt about the applicability of [SECTION] to applications under other Acts, about which we express no concluded opinion, there is not the slightest doubt that [SECTION] would cover applications' under the [ACT]. The consensus of opinion of the various High Courts has been that [SECTION] of the old [ACT] applied to the applications under the [ACT]. [SECTION] of the new [ACT] should also be given a similar meaning. [SECTION], being a residuary Article, must be construed ejusdem generis with the other Articles. dealing with applications. As most of the other Articles deal with applications under the [ACT], [SECTION] should also be Held to apply to applications! under the [ACT]. In [PRECEDENT] the Division Bench distinguished the Supreme Court decision in AIR 196[SECTION] SC 752 on the ground that the application* in that case was not an application under the [ACT] but it was an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
That the application for substitution ol heirs in revision is an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] can admit of no doubt. Therefore, the period of limitation for bringing the heirs of the deceased Opposite Party No. 10 would be three years under [SECTION] of the new [ACT]. The application for substitution was filed within three years of the death of Opposite Party No. 10, so there is no question of abatement or of condonation of delay.
8. Miscellaneous Application No. [SECTION]130 of 1970 for bringing the heirs of [ENTITY] (Opposite Party No. 10) on record is accordingly allowed and the name of [ENTITY] will be removed from the array of opposite parties and in his place the name of [ENTITY] will be brought on record.
9. In the view that we have taken, the other Miscellaneous Application (No. 1[SECTION]638 of 1971) under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has become infructuous and is dismissed.
10. Before parting with the case we would like to observe the desirability of the amendment of the Rules of Court on the Administrative side so as to prescribe a uniform period of limitation of ninety days for bringing heirs of a deceased party even in revision applications. The Rules of the Court have already been amended so as to prescribe a period of ninety days for bringing the heirs of a deceased party in a writ petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT], to special appeals and [ACT] references falling under [SECTION] of the Rules of the Court, by the introduction of [SECTION], [ACT]
11. The revision application will now be placed before the Bench concerned for disposal on merits.