S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS M. C. A. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer for setting aside the abatement of S. C. A. No. 4488 of 1984. Further prayer has been to bring on record the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 as heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent Ramanbhai Parbatbhai Padhiyar. ( 2 ) THE S. C. A. No. 4488 of 1984 has come up for hearing before this Court on 1. 8. 96, on which date the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant was present. The sole respondent therein had expired and his heirs and legal representatives were not brought on record and as such, the Special Civil Application was ordered to be dismissed as having abated. However, liberty has been granted to the petitioner-applicant to file application for setting aside of the abatement and for bringing on record, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent, and upon filing of the same, it was ordered that the same will be considered on merits in accordance with law. ( 3 ) IN this M. C. A. , the applicant stated that the sole respondent expired on 26th October 1991. After obtaining the death certificate and the revenue entry No. 26/86 dated 17. 2. 92, the applicant came to know that the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent in S. C. A and this application came to be filed before this Court on 4. 9. 96 for grant of the prayers aforesaid. The delay in filing this application has been given that after dismissal of the S. C. A. , the applicants advocate has informed the applicant by his letter dated 7. 8. 96 and thereafter the applicant gathered information regarding death and other things of respondent and filed this application as early as possible. On this ground, condonation of delay has been prayed for. ( 4 ) THE respondents have filed a detailed reply to this M. C. A. In the reply, they have denied that the applicant came to know of death of sole respondent in S. C. A. only on receipt of the letter of their counsel as well as on obtaining a copy of entry No. 26/86 dated 17. 2. 92. ( 4 ) THE respondents have filed a detailed reply to this M. C. A. In the reply, they have denied that the applicant came to know of death of sole respondent in S. C. A. only on receipt of the letter of their counsel as well as on obtaining a copy of entry No. 26/86 dated 17. 2. 92. It has further been stated that the applicant has deliberately made this statement of fact in the application with a view to mislead the Court. In between the parties, a cognate proceedings bearing Tenancy-D-Revision-Case No. 145/93 took place before the Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara, and the said proceedings were initiated by application instituted by Bhikhabhai Ramanbhai, proposed respondent No. 1/2 herein. In those proceedings the applicant herein was a party and as such the respondents stated that it has come to the notice of applicant of death of respondent in S. C. A. in the year 1993 itself. But still no steps have been taken to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives within reasonable time. ( 5 ) THE applicant filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and therein it has been stated that merely because the respondent has filed the aforesaid proceedings before the Mamlatdar in the year 1993, it cannot be said that the person who was dealing in the year 1993 was aware of the fact that there was a petition pending since 1984 in this Court. Further affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed on behalf of original petitioner in S. C. A. and a plea has been taken that `kothari go on changing and as such it is not correct to say on the part of respondents that they had knowledge of death of respondent. Further affidavit has also been filed by Shri Y. B. Trivedi, on behalf of applicant. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the matter of substitution of heirs and legal representatives, liberal approach has to be taken. The Court should decide the matter, as far as possible, on merits and genuine claim of the applicant should not be denied only on the ground that heirs and legal representatives were not brought on record within reasonable time. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant made reference to certain decision of Honble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant made reference to certain decision of Honble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents contended that it is a case where despite of knowing of death of respondent in S. C. A. , no steps have been taken within reasonable time to bring on record, his heirs and legal representative. Right to pursue legal remedy against the surviving heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent survive to the applicant-petitioner and as such to pursue the claim against the heirs and legal representatives of respondent, the applicant ought to have taken steps to substitute them within reasonable time. By not acting within reasonable time, valuable right has been accrued to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent. It has further been contended that Special Civil Applications cannot be said to have abated automatically in case the heirs and legal representatives of respondent are not brought on record within 90 days of the death, but where the right to sue survives to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent and the petitioner wants to continue with the proceedings against them, then within a reasonable time, they have to be brought on record. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on one decision of the Apex Court. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) THERE cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that on the application filed by the plaintiff or the petitioner or the appellant for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of deceased defendant/ respondent/ opponent, the approach of the Court should be liberal while considering the question of condonation of delay in filing thereof. Out of the judgments which have been referred and relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, I consider it to be appropriate to make reference on one out of them. In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, reported in JT 1996 (3) SC 371, The L. P. A. filed by the State in the High Court was dismissed on the ground of delay. In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, reported in JT 1996 (3) SC 371, The L. P. A. filed by the State in the High Court was dismissed on the ground of delay. The High Court has declined to condone delay in filing of the L. P. A. The Apex Court in this case has observed that State cannot be put on the same footing as `individual. The expression "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism injustice-oriented approach rather than technical detection. The Court has further observed that delay of 109 days in the case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of delay. That matter related to condonation of delay and it is no gainsaid that in the case where sufficient cause has been shown for delay in filing of the application, the Court should have approach, as observed by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, but as held by the Apex Court in the case of Puransingh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1092 , the Court, at the same time, should have been conscious of the fact that by lapse of time, valuable rights are accrued to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent and he or they should not be compelled to contest the claim which due to inaction of the petitioner, has become final. ( 10 ) THE provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as is clear from the provisions of Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. However, this Court, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has to adopt its own procedure which is reasonable and expeditious. But for the non applicability of provisions of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Writ proceedings or Writ appeals, it cannot be taken that the petitioner or the appellant in such Writ petitions or Writ appeals can ignore the death of respondent if the right to pursue remedy even after the death of respondent survives. After the death of respondent, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to substitute the heirs of such respondent within a reasonable time. After the death of respondent, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to substitute the heirs of such respondent within a reasonable time. For the purpose of holding as to what shall be the reasonable time, the Apex Court, in the case of Puransingh v. State of Punjab (supra), has given out that this Court may take note of the period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act for substituting the heirs of deceased defendant or respondent. However, there is no question of automatic abatement of the Writ proceedings. Even if an application is filed beyond 90 days of the death of such respondent, the Court can take into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the application for substitution of legal representatives. However, this power has to be exercised on well known and settled principles in respect of exercise of discretionary powers of this Court. If this Court is satisfied that the delay if any, in substitution of the heirs of deceased respondent was not intentional and sufficient cause has been shown for not taking steps earlier, it can permit the applicant to substitute heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent and proceed with the hearing of the writ petition. But the Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, has given a note of caution that at the same time this Court has to be conscious that after lapse of time, valuable right accrues to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent and he/they should not be compelled to contest the claim which due to inaction of the petitioner has become final. ( 11 ) IN the present case, though the petitioner has tried to give out that it had no notice of the death of respondent till it received letter of its counsel, the question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether this defence taken has to be taken to be correct? If this explanation given for delay in filing the application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of respondent is taken to be justified and correct, this M. C. A. deserves acceptance, but where this explanation is found to be wholly unjustified and incorrect, then this M. C. A. cannot be granted. If this explanation given for delay in filing the application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of respondent is taken to be justified and correct, this M. C. A. deserves acceptance, but where this explanation is found to be wholly unjustified and incorrect, then this M. C. A. cannot be granted. From the record of the Special Civil Application, I find that the fact of death of respondent has come therein within reasonable proximity, i. e. by 20th June 1992. So the advocate for the applicant appearing in the Special Civil Application have come to know of the death of respondent in the month of May or June 1992 itself when the notice sent to the respondent returned unserved with endorsement `expired. However, a note has been submitted by the Department to the Additional Registrar on 8. 2. 93 which reads as under:in the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 4484 of 1984, Mr. V. H. Bhairavia was appearing on behalf of the respondent. But due to elevation of Mr. V. H. Bhairavia as Judge of this Honble Court, the office has issued notice on 27/2/1991 to the respondent regarding elevation of his advocate as Judge of this Honble Court. But the said notice returned unserved with remark "expired". The learned advocate for the petitioner has not taken any action for bringing heirs of the respondent on record and therefore, it is very difficult for the office to make the matter ready for final hearing. Under the circumstances stated above the aforesaid Special Civil Application may be ordered to be placed before the Honble Court for appropriate orders. For orders please. The matter has been placed before the Court on 24th February 1993, on which date, the Court ordered: It is reported that respondent No. 4 has expired. The petitioner is directed to file necessary Civil Application for bringing heirs on record within four weeks from today. So the petitioner was directed to bring on record, the heirs and legal representatives of respondent within four weeks from that date but despite of this order, no steps have been taken whatsoever. Only when the matter has been dismissed, all this defence has been manufactured. The matter does not end here. The cognate proceedings bearing Tenancy-D-Revision-Case No. 145/93 are also relevant to be referred here. Only when the matter has been dismissed, all this defence has been manufactured. The matter does not end here. The cognate proceedings bearing Tenancy-D-Revision-Case No. 145/93 are also relevant to be referred here. These proceedings have admittedly taken place before the Revenue Court at Vadodara and the same have been initiated by application aforesaid by Bhikhabhai Ramanbhai Padhiyar, the proposed respondent No. 1/2 herein. In the cause title of this case before the Revenue Court, the applicant is described as "heir and legal representative of Ramanbhai Parbatbhai, who was heir and legal representative of Bai Dhuli, wd/o. Mansinh". In the preamble of the aforesaid application it is indicated that the application is filed by Bhikhabhai Ramanbhai, eldest son of deceased Ramanbhai who was heir of deceased Dhuliben. In para-2 of the said application, it is further stated that Ramanbhai Parbatbhai Padhiyar (original sole respondent of Special Civil Application No. 4488 of 1984), died on 26th December 1991 and as per the Hindu Law, as a head of the family, Bhikhabhai Ramanbhai is left and it is further averred in para-3 thereof that Bhikhabhai stays in the disputed land and works in the disputed field. It is not in dispute that the process of this application was served on the non applicant therein. So that is another proceeding in between the parties, i. e. one of the legal heirs of deceased respondent and applicant-petitioner where the fact regarding death of respondent has been disclosed way back in the year 1993. In view of these aforesaid two facts, on which there is no dispute, the explanation given for delay in filing of the application is manufactured and concocted. The fact of death of respondent has come on record of Special Civil Application itself in the month of May or June 1992 and though the Court has given time on 24th February 1993 for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives within three weeks, the applicant has not acted accordingly and instead has conveniently concealed this fact. In view of the order of this Court dated 24th February 1993 in the Special Civil Application, it is difficult to accept that the applicant has come to know about the death of respondent only on receipt of the letter of its counsel dated 7th August 1996. It is a case where the applicant-petitioner has not come up with clean hands. It is a case where the applicant-petitioner has not come up with clean hands. The very material and important fact has been concealed and certainly an attempt has been made to mislead the Court. This Misc. Civil Application is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case as aforesaid. ( 12 ) IN the result, this Misc. Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed. Notice discharged with costs of Rs. 2,000. 00 to be paid to proposed respondent No. 1/2 herein. .