JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 29.1.1993 whereby he dismissed the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Smt. Chint Kaur.
2. Smt. Chint Kaur, Sant Singh and Beant Kaur moved an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter of the Principal Court of Ordinary Jurisdiction for deciding the controversy between the parties. The Land Acquisition Collector referred the application to the District Judge, Patiala and was assigned to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala for disposal. During the pendency of the reference application Chint Kaur died on 29.8.1991. Petitioners herein claiming to be the legal representatives of Chint Kaur moved an application on 8.3.1992 for being brought on record as LR’s in place of Chint Kaur. The application was contested by the other side. Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 29.1.1993 came to the conclusion that the application was barred by time. He consequently dismissed the application. It is this order which is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have not put in appearance. They were consequently proceeded against ex parte.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1982)84 P.L.R. 124 submitted that the provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act are applicable and not the provisions of Article 120 of Limitation Act, as the proceedings before the Reference Court is not a suit and the parties to the reference proceedings are neither the plaintiff nor the defendant.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the contention has merit. The Reference Court is required to answer the reference on its own merits and for doing so, it was expected of it to bring on record the LR’s of deceased-applicant. In Baldev Singh’s case, which almost covers the controversy raised in this petition, it was clearly held that the provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act apply.
6. In that view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed. Order under revision is set aside and the applicants are ordered to be impleaded as LR’s of Chint Kaur, deceased-claimant.
7. Petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 16.11.1998. Learned Additional District Judge shall now dispose of the reference in accordance with law at an early date.