Article 226 writ proceedings are not governed by CPC substitution limitation, so abatement cannot be assumed for delayed substitution.

A writ petition under Article 226 is an exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, so the procedural scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in terms; the Explanation to Section 141 excludes Article 226 proceedings. As a result, the substitution timeline under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not attracted to writ proceedings. The petition cannot be treated as abated merely because the application to bring legal representatives on record was filed beyond 90 days, though general substitution principles may still be applied where appropriate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the procedural provisions relating to substitution of legal representatives and the limitation period for such substitution under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the writ petition abated for want of timely substitution.

Analysis: A writ petition under Article 226 is an exercise of extraordinary and special jurisdiction, not a proceeding in a court of civil jurisdiction. The procedural scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in terms to such proceedings, and the Explanation to Section 141 of the Code expressly excludes proceedings under Article 226. The technical limitation period for substitution under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is therefore not attracted to writ proceedings. Only general principles of substitution may be applied where appropriate, but the writ petition cannot be treated as having abated merely because the substitution application was filed beyond 90 days.

Conclusion: The objection based on abatement and limitation was rejected, and the application for bringing the legal representatives on record was held to be in order.

---