Advisory income-tax reference proceedings are not civil proceedings, so Order 22 CPC does not cause abatement on death.

An application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state a case, was held not to be a civil proceeding within section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court treated the proceeding as an exercise of advisory jurisdiction, not original or appellate jurisdiction, so the procedural rules for suits, including Order 22, did not apply. As the Income-tax Act and rules contained no provision making the death of a party fatal, the application did not abate on the respondent's death.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state a case, is a civil proceeding within section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that Order 22 applies and the application abates on the death of the respondent.

Analysis: The proceeding under section 66(2) was held to invoke the High Court's advisory jurisdiction, not its original or appellate jurisdiction. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that pending income-tax references under section 66 do not abate, Order 22 had not been made applicable to such references, and there was nothing in the Income-tax Act or the rules to make the death of a party fatal to the proceeding. Section 141 was held not to extend to this kind of proceeding because it was not a civil proceeding in the sense required for the application of the Code's procedure for suits.

Conclusion: The application did not abate, and Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inapplicable.

---