Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Order 22 Rule 10 contemplates a situation arising in the cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest during pendency of a suit other than those referred to earlier Rules. It is based on the principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely on account of interest of a party, subject matter of a suit, is devolved upon another during its pendency. Such a suit may be continued with the leave of Court, by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. But, if no such step is taken, and transferee of interest is not brought on record and impleaded, that would not mean that suit cannot proceed. It may be continued with original party and the person upon whom interest has devolved, will be bound by and can have the benefit of decree, as the case may be, unless it is shown in a properly constituted proceeding that the original party being no longer interested in the proceeding did not vigorously prosecute, or colluded with the adversary, resulting in decision adverse to the party upon whom interest had devolved.

16. In Shri Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass Vs. Som Dass (Deceased) through his Chela Shiam Das, (1976) 1 SCC 103, a three Judge Bench considered the scope and effect of Order XXII, Rule 10. A suit was filed by Mahant (the appellant before the Apex Court) on the allegation that Dera at Patiala of which he was Mahant had other branches, one at Landeke in Moga Tehsil and possession of that Dera and properties attached with, be restored to him. The defendant Som Dass contended that the said Dera at Landeke was an independent Dera and he was in possession of the properties thereof, being a lawfully appointed Mahant. The suit was decreed by Trial Court but in appeal the Trial Court's judgment was reversed. The second appeal preferred before High Court and when the same was pending, defendant Som Dass died on 13.10.1970. No application to bring on record legal representatives of Som Dass was filed within the period of limitation. An application, filed subsequently after period of limitation, was rejected by High Court holding that appeal had abated and there was no ground for setting aside abatement. The Apex Court came to the conclusion that application for impleadment of Chela Shiam Dass as legal representative of defendant Som Dass could not have been taken as an application under Order XXII, Rule 3 C.P.C. but it is an application under Order XXII, Rule 10. When Som Dass died, the interest which was subject-matter of suit, i.e. the property of Dera, devolved upon Shiam Dass as he was elected Mahant of Dera and therefore appeal could be continued under Order XXII, Rule 10 against the person upon whom the interest had devolved. The Court said that Order XXII, Rule 10 is based on the principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because interest of a party in a subject matter of suit has devolved upon another during pendency of suit. In fact such proceeding may be continued against the person acquiring interest, with the leave of the Court. When a suit is brought, by or against a person in a representative capacity, and there is a devolution of interest of such person, the rule that has to be applied is Order XXII, Rule 10 and not Rule 3 or 4, irrespective of fact whether devolution has takes place as a consequence of death or for any other reason. Order XXII, Rule 10, is not confined to devolution of interest due to death of a party but it also applies where the head of mutt or manager of a temple resigns his office or is removed from his office. In such a case, successor to the head of mutt or the manager of temple may be substituted as a party under this rule.

"Admittedly, before their deaths, they sold their respective shares by registered sale deeds in favour of other respondents. So, by operation of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, their respective interest devolved by transfer of the respondents who are already on record. Therefore, there is no need to bring the L.Rs. of the deceased on record or to transpose them as legal representatives." (emphasis added)

20. In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University, AIR 2001 SC 2552, the Court, construing scope and ambit of Order XXII, Rule 10 C.P.C., said, "it provides for cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit". Trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end for the sole reason that interest of a party in the subject matter of suit has devolved upon another, during its pendency. Such a suit may be continued with the leave of Court, by or against person upon whom such interest has devolved. The Court also observed that if no such steps is taken, the suit may be continued with original party and person upon whom interest has devolved will be bound by decree, particularly, when such transferor had knowledge of proceedings and made no attempt to get himself impleaded in pending proceedings. The Limitation Act provides limitation in respect to applications under Order XXII, Rule 3 and 4 but it has not been shown to the Court that there is any provision providing limitation for impleadment of a transferor by way of assignment, creation or devolution of interest in subject matter of suit property, pendency thereof is governed by Order XXII, Rule 10. The relevant extract of judgment discussing Order XXII, Rule 10 C.P.C. is as under:

"Plain language of Rule 10 referred to above does not suggest that leave can be sought by that person alone upon whom the interest has devolved. It simply says that the suit may be continued by the person upon whom such an interest has devolved and this applies in a case where the interest of plaintiff has devolved. Likewise, in a case where interest of defendant has devolved, the suit may be continued against such a person upon whom interest has devolved, but in either eventuality, for continuance of the suit against the persons upon whom the interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit, leave of the court has to be obtained. If it is laid down that leave can be obtained by that person alone upon whom interest of party to the suit has devolved during its pendency, then there may be preposterous results as such a party might not be knowing about the litigation and consequently not feasible for him to apply for leave and if a duty is cast upon him then in such an eventuality he would be bound by the decree even in cases of failure to apply for leave. As a rule of prudence, initial duty lies upon the plaintiff to apply for leave in case the factum of devolution was within his knowledge or with due diligence could have been known by him. The person upon whom the interest has devolved may also apply for such a leave so that his interest may be properly represented as the original party, if it ceased to have an interest in the subject matter of dispute by virtue of devolution of interest upon another person, may not take interest therein, in ordinary course, which is but natural, or by colluding with the other side. If the submission of Shri Mishra is accepted, a party upon whom interest has devolved, upon his failure to apply for leave, would be deprived from challenging correctness of the decree by filing a properly constituted suit on the ground that the original party having lost interest in the subject of dispute, did not properly prosecute or defend the litigation or, in doing so, colluded with the adversary. Any other party, in our view, may also seek leave as, for example, where plaintiff filed a suit for partition and during its pendency he gifted away his undivided interest in the Mitakshara Coparcenary in favour of the contesting defendant, in that event the contesting defendant upon whom the interest of the original plaintiff has devolved has no cause of action to prosecute the suit, but if there is any other co-sharer who is supporting the plaintiff, may have a cause of action to continue with the suit by getting himself transposed to the category of plaintiff as it is well settled that in a partition suit every defendant is plaintiff, provided he has cause of action for seeking partition. Thus, we do not find any substance in this submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and hold that prayer for leave can be made not only by the person upon whom interest has devolved, but also by the plaintiff or any other party or person interested." (emphasis added)