balram ram bahadur and jugal kishore who are the three sons of rameshwar moved the appellate companyrt for substitution of their names as legal representatives in place of rameshwar on october 25 1980.
accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
therefore on the expiry of 90 days from the date of death of rameshwar numberabatement set in and the application for substitution made on october 25 1980 could number have been rejected as being barred by limitation.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3952 of 1983 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th october 1982 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil misc.
the additional distt.
when on the special leave petition numberice was given it was indicated that the case would be disposed of on merits.
they applied for setting aside of abatement and companydonation of delay.
an application under art.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. this appeal by special leave seeks to assail the decision of the allahabad high companyrt in a proceeding under article 226 of the companystitution refusing to quash an order of the iiird additional district judge kanpur holding that ceiling appeal number 189 of 1976 under the u.p.
writ petition number 7029 of 1981.
the high companyrt referred to s. 38 1 of the act and to rules 3 9 and 11 of order xxii of the companye and held that article 120 of the first schedule of the limitation act 1963 was applicable and the petition for substitution should have been filed within 90 days from the date of death.
226 was made before the allahabad high companyrt for quashing of the appellate order.
the ceiling appeal in question had been carried by one rameshwar and during its pendency the sole appellant died on january 9 1980.
imposition of ceiling on land holdings act 1960 had abated for number substitution of the sole appellants legal representatives.
s.dikshit for respondent number2.
imposition of ceiling on land holdings act 1960 act for short for applying for substitution number was there any period prescribed in rule 3 of order xxii of the companye of civil procedure companye for short which became applicable in view of s. 38 of the act.
p. malhotra and mrs.
k. sen and pramod swarup for the appellants.
it was contended that there was numberperiod of limitation prescribed in respect of proceedings under the u.p.
