The main legal point established in the judgment is the flexibility and importance of allowing the assignee to prosecute the suit, as well as the need for a liberal construction of legal provisions to advance substantial justice.

This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicant - State Bank of India, as an assignee of the suit debt from the original Plaintiff - SBI Home Finance Limited. The latter is an entity promoted by the former. The Applicant as an assignee seeks to prosecute the present suit under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('CPC'). The Applicant, accordingly, seeks an amendment in the plaint. Besides, being an application under Section 22 Rule 10 of CPC, the present application also seeks to implead the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1 under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC.

2. Both these requests, that is, applications under Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC are opposed by Respondent No.3 proposed to be joined as a party Defendant in place of deceased Defendant No.1 in addition to other Respondents. The other Defendants to the suit and also other Respondents, who are sought to be joined as Defendants, do not contest the applications.

3. This suit is filed by the original Plaintiff on 17 October 2003. The suit was on the basis of three separate guarantee deeds executed by the original Defendants in favour of the original Plaintiff guaranteeing a loan made available by the latter to Lok Housing and Constructions Limited. Around the time the suit was filed, the principal borrower was covered by a notification issued under the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act. In the premises, the present suit was filed by the original Plaintiff only against the Defendants – guarantors. Whilst the suit was pending, by a registered Deed of Assignment executed and registered in Calcutta, the original Plaintiff assigned several of its debts including the debt forming the subject matter of the suit to the Applicant herein. Presumably, the Applicant kept prosecuting the present suit in the name of the assignor, namely, the original Plaintiff. On 31 March 2009, the original Plaintiff was ordered to be wound up by an order passed by Calcutta High Court on the application of the Applicant herein. The present suit, however, continued to be prosecuted in the name of the original Plaintiff even thereafter. In the meantime, on 23 March 2010, Defendant No.1 died. The Advocates of Defendant No.1 addressed a letter dated 27 June 2014 to the Advocates of the Plaintiff informing the latter about the death of Defendant No.1, enclosing a copy of the death certificate and also communicating the names and particulars of heirs and legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1. Within thirty days of this communication, the Applicant has filed the present Chamber Summons seeking firstly, as noted above, leave to prosecute the suit as an assignee under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC and also for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1 on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC.

4. The application is opposed by Respondent No.3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 makes the following submissions:

(1) In the first place, it is submitted that the Applicant, who bases its rights upon a purported Deed of Assignment and Transfer dated 17 February 2004, has not given a full and complete inspection of the purported Deed of Assignment and Transfer to the contesting Respondent but has given only a limited inspection of the same. It is submitted that, in the premises, the Applicant is not entitled to rely upon the document in support of its Chamber Summons;

(2) It is submitted that the original Plaintiff – company having been wound up by the Calcutta High Court, and the Applicant not having sought any leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 or brought on record the Official Liquidator, the present application is not maintainable;

(3) It is submitted that the document on the basis of which the Applicant claims its rights as an assignee, namely, the purported Deed of Assignment and Transfer dated 17 February 2004, is not adequately stamped. It is submitted that upon the deed or its copy being brought w