IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of allowing applications for substitution and transposition under the Civil Procedure Code, as well as the absence of a prescribed period of limitation for certain applications.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2015 rejecting their Civil Revision Application, affirming order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, 4th Court, Alipore, rejecting their application for substitution in place of proforma defendant no.2.

3. Title Suit No. 160 of 1982 (New Title Suit No. 41 of 2008) for ejectment and mesne profits was filed against the defendant by Smt. Surma Devi Pasari. The daughter-in- law of the plaintiff, Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari was impleaded as defendant no.2. It was pleaded that the latter was the real beneficiary owner of the suit premises and required the same for her use as she was staying in rented accommodation. The plaintiff and Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari were both deceased during the pendency of the suit. A last Will and Testament was executed on 26.10.2009 by Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari. She willed the suit property to the appellants appointing Sh. Bhagirath Pasari as the sole executor of her will. Probate having been obtained on 08.10.2013, Sh. Bhagirath Pasari executed a registered deed of assignment in favour of the appellants. The appellants filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for substitution in place of Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari which was rejected by the Civil Judge as being barred by limitation having been preferred beyond the statutory period of 90 days. The rejection has been affirmed by the High Court.

4. Shri Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the nomenclature of the application for substitution was not decisive. Essentially, it was an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code and for which there was no time limit prescribed, relying on Chandra Bai (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Khandalwal Vipra Vidyalaya Samiti and Others, 2016 (12) SCC 534. The appellant ought to have been substituted and then transposed as plaintiffs under Order 23 Rule 1A of the Code. The present order will only lead to multiplicity of proceedings by requiring the appellant to institute a fresh eviction which will only delay matters to the benefit of the respondent.

5. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the impugned orders call for no interference as substitution was sought after expiry of 90 days.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari was the real beneficiary of the eviction suit. She assigned her interests to the appellants by her last Will and Testament dated 20.10.2009. Consequent to her demise on 06.12.2012 and the probate granted upon the same, the appellants became the beneficiaries by virtue of registered assignment dated 21.12.2013. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed an application for substitution in place of Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari in February 2014, under Order I Rule 10(2). It, therefore, cannot be said prima facie that the application for substitution was beyond a period of 90 days from the date of knowledge consequent to the Assignment Deed.

7. Order I Rule 10(2) empowers the court to add or delete parties whether it be a plaintiff or defendant, to enable the court to effectually or completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in a suit. The purpose is salutary to avoid multiplicity of adjudication. The provision reads as follows:

“10(2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, 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 add