JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the cause list has been revised none appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who was respondent in the appeal before the First Appellate Court was the plaintiff in the suit is aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.1995 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) passed by the First Additional District Judge, Moradabad, in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1992 whereby an amendment application Paper No. 13-A made by the appellant seeking amendment in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Paper No. 3-C has been considered by the Court below and the impugned order has been passed. The order dated 2.11.1995 appears to be a formal order of the impugned order dated 27.10.1995 which is also sought to be set aside in these proceedings. 3. Sri Shukla has submitted that when a party in a proceedings dies the heirs and legal representatives are to be substituted and it cannot be done by way of moving the amendment application particularly because under the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. amendment is permissible only in the pleadings and not in the array of parties. He submits that by the impugned order such amendment application has been partly allowed illegally permitting amendment in the array of parties described in the Application under Section 5 Limitation Act. 4. While perusing the impugned order it appears that an amendment application No. 13-A was moved to amend the title in application for condonation of delay No. 3C by the defendant/appellant in the appeal. The appellant (defendant) wanted to strike out the word ‘Town Area Committee Gajraula and others’ from the array of parties and in that place to add ‘Town Area Committee Gajraula through Officer In-charge/Secretary’. A further amendment was sought that the plaintiff-respondent Shiv Kishore had died and in his place heirs and legal representatives namely Vidya Bhushan Sharma, Santosh Bhushan Sharma alias Anand Bhushan Sharma and Subhash Bhushan Sharma all sons of late Shiv Kishore Sharma be added. A further amendment was sought that the plaintiff-respondent Shiv Kishore had died and in his place heirs and legal representatives namely Vidya Bhushan Sharma, Santosh Bhushan Sharma alias Anand Bhushan Sharma and Subhash Bhushan Sharma all sons of late Shiv Kishore Sharma be added. The Court below while considering the rival contention of the parties found that there was no application or prayer for substitution insofar as the deceased Shiv Kumar Sharma is concerned, however, it was of the view that even if there is no application under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC and there was no intimation to the Court about the death of Shiv Kishore Sharma as required to be informed under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC, such application for amendment can be entertained for the purpose of amending the array of parties. While the Court was considering the application it came to a conclusion that before considering the amendment application Paper No. 13-A the application for condonation of delay Paper No. 3C requires to be considered and since the appellant and the respondent in the said application are not properly described and the respondent has died the title of the condonation of delay application be suitably amended to enable the Town Area Committee to be represented through Officer In-Charge and deceased Shiv Kishore Sharma be represented through his heirs and legal representatives. It is for the said purpose it has partly allowed the amendment application No. 13-A and has directed the amendment to be made in the title of the application for condonation of delay on payment of Rs.200/- as costs. 5. Sri Utpal Chatterjee, Advocate has assisted the Court and has pointed out the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. as also to Section 146 therein which are relevant for the controversy raised in this writ petition. 6. According to him under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC the Court has power to strike out or add a party even if there is no application made to such effect and the provision of Section 146 C.P.C. comes into play where proceedings are required to be continued. 6. According to him under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC the Court has power to strike out or add a party even if there is no application made to such effect and the provision of Section 146 C.P.C. comes into play where proceedings are required to be continued. According to him even if the application in the present case does not refer to the provision of Section 146 C.P.C., the application can be treated as one made under Section 146 CPC primarily for the reason that when an application is available for amendment in the array of parties, the Court has power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) to strike out or add a party. According to Sri Chatterjee such power exists in the Court where it can clearly direct an amendment in the array of parties in the appeal or even in an application for the purpose of representation of parties in the proceedings by or against any person claiming under him. 7. He has submitted that the Court below considered the circumstance where the appellant was not described through Officer In-Charge and the respondent had died and had not been substituted, therefore, it cannot be said that the Court below has acted without jurisdiction in allowing the amendment application partly only for the purpose of representation of the parties in the application for condonation of delay. 8. The submission of Sri Chatterjee appears to have substance inasmuch as the impugned order reflects the view of the Court and it has not allowed the amendment application for amendment of the parties in the memo of appeal. Since the appellant was not represented through a competent officer and the respondent had died but had not been substituted, therefore, for the purpose of hearing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal it required that the heirs of deceased Shiv Kishore Sharma be brought on record of such application and the Town Area Committee be represented through Officer In-Charge in that application. 9. It is not denied that if an application does not contain the provision under which it has been made the contents of the application can be perused for determining whether it could be treated under a relevant provision and in the present case such circumstance does exist. 9. It is not denied that if an application does not contain the provision under which it has been made the contents of the application can be perused for determining whether it could be treated under a relevant provision and in the present case such circumstance does exist. Hence by treating the application under Section 146 C.P.C., the impugned order has been passed exercising its jurisdiction by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. Section 146 C.P.C is quoted hereunder : “146. Proceedings by or against representatives.—Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. The provision provides that if a proceeding can be taken by or against any person, then it can also be taken by or against any person claiming under him. 10. It the present case the Town Area Committee Gajraula was the appellant in a time barred appeal. It made the amendment application to amend the title in its application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The amendment was necessitated due to a statutory amendment made in the statute where by a Nagar Panchayat has come into existence and its charge was taken from the Chairman by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It also made a prayer for amendment in the array of parties relating to the deceased plaintiff respondent namely Shiv Kishore Sharma as arrayed in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 11. The Court below has allowed the application for amendment in the title of the condonation of delay application and further recorded that the delay in bringing the heirs and legal representatives of Shiv Kishore Sharma will now be considered when the condonation of delay application will be taken up on merits. 12. These facts indicate that in view of the amendment in the statute the appellant was not represented by the proper/competent officer and the respondent had not been substituted in the appeal. When it allowed the appellant to be represented by its proper/competent officer it was only for the purpose of considering the condonation of delay application and not the appeal itself. When it allowed the appellant to be represented by its proper/competent officer it was only for the purpose of considering the condonation of delay application and not the appeal itself. Under these circumstances when the respondent had also died it could not pass any orders on the condonation of delay application against a dead person. It is here that the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. The provision is quoted below : Order 1 Rules 10(1) and 10(2) are also quoted hereunder : 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.—(1) Where as suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceeding, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 13. This provision enables the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage in order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the Suit. The Suit had been decreed in favour of Shiv Kishore Sharma who later died and was required to be represented in the appeal filed by the defendant. The First Appellate Court on an application made by the defendant appellant has passed the impugned order. The Suit had been decreed in favour of Shiv Kishore Sharma who later died and was required to be represented in the appeal filed by the defendant. The First Appellate Court on an application made by the defendant appellant has passed the impugned order. In view of the provision of Section 146 CPC the application could be made by or against any person claiming under a person who could take up the proceedings or against whom an application could be made. Therefore in light of the aforementioned provision the appellant could be made to be represented by its proper/competent officer who would be the officer who could maintain the application to continue the proceeding claiming under the person who had undertaken these proceedings. Therefore in light of the jurisdiction vested in the Courts under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC the impugned order has been passed in proper exercise of its jurisdiction. 14. Insofar as late Shiv Kumar Sharma is concerned no information was given to the Court as required under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC. The Court considered the objection of the plaintiff respondent and has recorded that even they did not give any information as required under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC. The defendant-appellant is a statutory body and it gained knowledge about the death of Shiv Kishore Sharma on information sent to it on 5.4.1995. It was not an information to the person who was conducting the proceedings on behalf of the statutory body. When it came to his knowledge he sought amendment by striking out the deceased and adding the persons claiming under the deceased. 15. It is important that the Suit itself was one for claiming rights to hold cattle fair and the Town Area Committee Gajraula was made defendant. It was not a suit for title of land. When Shiv Kishore Sharma died then the persons who were claiming rights to hold cattle fair on the land would be the persons who were claiming under him and therefore proceedings could be taken even against them. Therefore the Court was within its jurisdiction to exercise its power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to strike out and add parties for effectual adjudication of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 16. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be set aside for the grounds taken in the writ petition. It is accordingly upheld. 17. Therefore the Court was within its jurisdiction to exercise its power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to strike out and add parties for effectual adjudication of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 16. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be set aside for the grounds taken in the writ petition. It is accordingly upheld. 17. The assistance given by Sri Chatterjee to this Court is appreciated. 18. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 19. No order is passed as to costs. —————