ORDER :

The only question raised before this Court is whether the High Court has correctly upheld the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the application filed under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Respondent No.1 Society.

2. Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the High Court ought to have dismissed the application since the application had been filed before the Court after long delay. In support of his submissions he relied upon the following decisions of this Court: Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal & Ors., [2004 (2) SCC 601]; Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Farida Khatoon & Anr., [2005 (11) SCC 403]; Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2012 (8) SCC 384]; Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Sahib & Anr. [2004 (1) SCC 191] and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [2013 (5) SCC 397].

3. We have duly taken note of these decisions and it appears to us that in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal (supra), this Court has held that in case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of any suit, Order 22, Rule 10 CPC confers a dis