At the stage of granting leave under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, a detailed enquiry into the existence or validity of the assignment or devolution is not required. The Court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit by or against the person on whom the interest has developed by assignment or devolution.

JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:--- This revision application by the original defendant is directed against the order passed by the trial Court permitting non-applicant No. 5 who claimed to be the assignee of the interest of the opponents Nos. 1 to 4-original plaintiffs, to continue the suit under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The opponents Nos. 1 to 4 brought Small Cause Suit No. 684 of 1981 for possession against the applicant the ground that permission to determine the lease of the applicant was obtained but the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 from the Rent Controller and pursuant to that permission a notice to determine the lease was issued. The suit was resisted by the applicant contending that the notice had been waived by the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 and they agree to continue the lease. The opponent No. 5 filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for leave to continue that suit by being added as plaintiff No. 4 . According to him, the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 assigned their Interest at well as the right to continue the suit to him by the sale deed dated 29-1-1982 and in view of the assignment and devolution of interest upon him he was entitled to continue the suit.

3. The application was resisted by the revision-applicant on the ground that the notice had been waived by the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 and so the permission granted by the Rent Controller to determine the lease would not enure for the benefit of the opponent No. 5. The trial Court held on the basis of the certified copy of the sale deed produced by the opponent No. 5 and his affidavit that there was an assignment of the interest of opponents Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of opponent No. 5 and granted him leave to continue the suit.

4. The first contention of Shri G.B. Lohia, learned Counsel for the applicant, was that as there was no enquiry by the trial Court before granting leave to the opponent No. 5 to continue the suit, the order allowing the application was bad. Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C. is as follows :

"10(1): In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.

(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit or sub-rule (1)."

5. The contention is that before the leave can be granted the Court must ascertain whether the interest has come or devolved on the person claiming to be assignee and that unless there is an enquiry in respect of the right and the right is established after a full hearing, leave cannot be granted. Now the object of granting leave is to enable proceedings to be continued by or against the person acquiring interest in the subject-matter, the words "upon whom such interest has come or devolved" being merely descriptive of the person in respect of whom such leave may be granted. The phraseology of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 does not indicate that before the leave is granted there has to be a finding regarding the validity of the assignment or devolution.

6. Shri Lohia urged that such an enquiry is necessary in respect of the categories mentioned in Rules 1 to 9 of Order 22, Civil Procedure Code before legal representatives are allowed to be brought on record so that the suit can be continued when a party to the suit dies and there is no reason why an exception should be made in the case of persons covered by Rule 10. Now Rule 5 requires that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court. The opening words of sub-rule (1) make it clear that the cases covered by Rule 10 are a class apart from the cases covered by Rules 1 to 9 and the option to continue the suit is dependent upon the leave of the Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document