P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. These petitions originally came on for disposal before Govinda Menon, J., who considered that they raised an important question as to the applicability of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code to the facts of the case, the question being whether when one of a group of trustees who are parties to an appeal dies, the provision of law applicable for bringing on record his successor is Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 or Order 22, Rule 10.
2. We do not think it necessary to go into this question, because these petitions have been filed in Civil Revision Petitions, and not in appeals. Order 22, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly makes the provisions of that order applicable to appeals and says that the word ' plaintiff' shall be held to include an appellant, the word ' defendant ' a respondent, and the word ' suit 'an appeal. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure making the provisions of Order 22, applicable to Civil Revision Petitions. In the Appellate Side Rules of this Court certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are made applicable mutatis mutandis to Civil Revision Petitions--Vide Rule 41-B, but there is no provision making Order 22, applicable to them.
3. Likewise there is nothing in the Indian Limitation Act making any of the Articles to Schedule I of that Act applicable to Civil Revision Petitions. So far as the presentation of such petitions is concerned, this Court has made a rule--Rule 41-A(2) under which no application in civil revision shall be presented after 90 days from the date of the order complained of, provided that the Court may, on sufficient cause shown excuse the delay in presentation. But for this provision there is no other provision prescribing a time limit for any application such as one for bringing on record legal representatives in the place of the deceased respondent in Civil Revision Petitions.
4. There can be no question of abatement but for the combined application of the provisions of Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and the material Articles of Schedule I of the Limitation Act. As neither Order 22, nor the Indian Limitation Act applies to Civil Revision Petitions there can be no question of abatement. The decision of a single Judge of this Court in Basavanjanayulu v. Ramalingayya A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 15 has been brought to our notice. In that case Stodart, J., held that Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 were applicable to proceedings under Section 115. No authority was cited in support of this conclusion. The learned Judge contents himself with observing that in this Court, at any rate, and in the Calcutta High Court, Order 22, has also been applied to petitions under Section 115. Learned Counsel has not been' able to cite to us any instance in which this Court has definitely ruled that Order 22 applies to petitions under Section 115. With respect to the learned Judge, we think his decision was wrong.
5. The applications to bring on record the legal representatives of the third respondent are ordered.