Honble YADAV, J. — This writ petition is listed before this Court for disposal of application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC alleging therein that petitioner No. 1 Suraj died on 27.10.92 leaving behind three sons, two daughters and widow Smt. Chuka Devi. It is also alleged that Sarva Shri Rupa, Sohan Ram and Gudad are already on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Only two daughters and widow of late Shri Suraj Karan ought to be taken on record as heirs and legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.l. (2). A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 opposing the aforesaid application moved by the remaining petitioners on the ground that the application moved by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC is barred by limitation. It is further alleged in the objection that since the remaining petitioners failed to move the instant application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC within 90 days, therefore, the present petition is automatically abated. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri KR Choudhary and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 Shri HR Soni and have critically gone through the material on record. (4). It is urged before me on behalf of the petitioners that from the explanation appended to the amended Section 141 CPC it will be clear that Section 141 does not apply to proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel for the remaining petitioners as a natural corollary it follows that the Code of Civil Procedure does not in terms apply to the writ petition, therefore, according to him Order 22 of the CPC is not applicable to writ proceedings. (5). In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemraj Vs. Income Tax Recovery, Jodhpur (1). (6). The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners has been refuted by the learned counsel , for Respondent No.5. According to him the Rules of Limitation contained in Article 120 read with Order 22 Rule 4 CPC which provides 90 days time for making an application for substitution of legal representatives is applicable to the writ proceedings. (7). (6). The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners has been refuted by the learned counsel , for Respondent No.5. According to him the Rules of Limitation contained in Article 120 read with Order 22 Rule 4 CPC which provides 90 days time for making an application for substitution of legal representatives is applicable to the writ proceedings. (7). In support of his aforesaid contention the learned counsel , for Respondent No.5 placed reliance on a decision of learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Anant Ram Thakur Vs. Dy. Commissioner, Kulu & Ors. (2). (8). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. In my considered opinion before amendment of Section 141 CPC there were conflicts of decisions rendered by various High Courts of this country. Some of the High Courts have taken the view that the writ proceedings fall within the scope of Civil Jurisdiction, therefore, the provision of Section 141 CPC are applicable to writ petitions. But the aforesaid controversy has been resolved by adding an explanation to Section 141 CPC which reads as follows: — "In this Section the expression proceedings includes proceedings under Order 9 but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution." (9). From the explanation added to the amended section 141 CPC it will be clear that Section 141 does not apply to proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, a contention for automatic abatment of the writ proceeding due to filing of substitution application after expiry of 90 days is not acceptable to me. Only general rules relating to substitution may be followed on the ground of equity justice and good conscience but there is no scope for imparting the technical rules of limitation contained in Art. 120 read with Order 22 Rule 4 CPC which provides 90 days time for making an application for the substitution of legal representatives. The explanation added to Section 141 CPC has now settled the controversy which existed among the various High Courts and categorically lays down that Section does not include proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (10). The explanation added to Section 141 CPC has now settled the controversy which existed among the various High Courts and categorically lays down that Section does not include proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (10). In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion the technical rules of limitation contained in Order 22 Rule 4 CPC read with Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act providing for making an application within 90 days are not attracted at all in the writ proceedings. However, it is made clear that in a writ proceeding if it is found by a court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India that the person moving application for substitution under Order 22 CPC is guilty of latches then of course on general principles after testing such latches on the envil of equity justice and judicial conscience, a substitution application for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of deceased may be rejected. (11). It is further held that the aforesaid principle of rejecting an application for substitution on the ground of latches will not arise in a case where some of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased are already on record. It is apparent from the perusal of this substitution application that three sons of deceased petitioner No. 1 are already on record. Only two daughters and one widow are to be substituted in place of deceased. Therefore, in such a situation the question of limitation does not arise and as such there is no valid justification for treating the writ petition as having abated. (12). It is true that the present controversy is also covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Hemraj (Supra) except in that case some of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased were not already on record while in the present case some of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased are already on record. Therefore, this point has been discussed separately in the present case. (13). In view of the explanation added to the Section 141 CPC the decision rendered in the case of Anant Ram Thakur (supra) relied on by the learned counsel , for Respondent No.5 does not hold water. (14). Therefore, this point has been discussed separately in the present case. (13). In view of the explanation added to the Section 141 CPC the decision rendered in the case of Anant Ram Thakur (supra) relied on by the learned counsel , for Respondent No.5 does not hold water. (14). As a result of the aforementioned discussion it is held that the application moved by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.l is in order and since three sons of deceased petitioner No.l. viz.Sarva Shri Rupa, Sohan Ram and Gudad are already on record, therefore, the name of petitioner No.l Suraj Karan may be struck of from the array of petitioners and in his place Smt. Chuka Devi widow Bharpai and Geva daughters of Suraj Karan may be substituted as heirs and legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.l. (15). Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to file amended cause title and when such amended cause title is filed, office to proceed further in the matter.