Order XXII CPC governs substitution in Small Causes suits outside the 1972 Act.

Bundu instituted an SCC suit for eviction and damages against Afaq, predecessor of the petitioners. After Bundu died on 23 May 2023, his legal representatives applied on 18 July 2023 to be substituted under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC.

The petitioners objected that the application was beyond the one-month period under Rule 25 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, and that the suit had abated. The Small Causes Court allowed substitution, and the revisional court dismissed the petitioners’ revision. The petitioners challenged both orders under Article 227.

Whether Rule 25 of the 1972 Rules governed substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff in this SCC suit.

Whether the suit abated when the substitution application was filed more than one month, but within ninety days, after the plaintiff’s death.

Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 makes CPC procedure applicable to Small Causes Court suits and proceedings, subject to express exclusions or modifications. Section 7 and Order L Rule 1 CPC enumerate provisions excluded from such courts; Order XXII is not among them.

Order XXII Rule 3 CPC provides for bringing a deceased plaintiff’s legal representatives on record where the right to sue survives, while Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes ninety days for such an application.

Rule 25 of the 1972 Rules applies only where the proceeding falls within the statutory field of the 1972 Act; its application cannot be presumed merely because the dispute concerns a tenancy or is before a Small Causes Court.

The Court also relied on Raju Kashyap and 2 others v. Smt. Archana Jain and Kishalaya Banerjee and others v. Smt. Kamala Devi Budhia Dharamshala Trust on the applicability of CPC procedure and Order XXII in the relevant circumstances.

The Court found no material establishing that the premises were governed by the 1972 Act; rather, the plaint described them as a newly constructed building. Rule 25’s one-month period therefore did not govern the substitution application.

Because the suit was an SCC suit and Order XXII was not excluded, the application was governed by Order XXII Rule 3 and Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Filed within ninety days of Bundu’s death, it was timely, so the condition for abatement under Order XXII Rule 3(2) did not arise.

Finding no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the orders permitting substitution, it dismissed the Article 227 petition and directed that the SCC suit proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by observations on its merits.