The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of impleading legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 3 and the discretionary nature of allowing the continuation of the suit by or against the assignee under Order XXII Rule 10.

SANJIV KHANNA, J, J.

( 1 ) THE present revision petition raises an interesting question relating to interpretation of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short), the rights of legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the rights of persons who claim themselves to be assignees i. e. person who have been allegedly assigned and transferred right, title and interest in the suit property by the deceased plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts relevant for adjudication of the controversy may be elucidated.

( 3 ) ONE, Ms. Satyawati Sharma was owner of property No. 70, Golf Links, New delhi. The ground floor of the said property was rented out to Indian Overseas bank, respondent no. 1 herein under a lease deed dated 5. 11. 1970, which was subsequently renewed for a period of three years ending on 31. 12. 1997 on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

( 4 ) ON 30. 6. 1995, Ms. Satyawati executed six sale deeds at Kolkatta in favour of six different companies who are respondent nos. 6 to 11 before this court. Consequent to the execution of the sale deeds, respondents 6 to 11 became sole and absolute owners of the aforesaid property, which was earlier owned by Ms. Satyawati Sharma. The ownership of the said respondents 6 to 11 is not disputed before me by the respondent no. 1 or by the legal heirs of Ms. Satyawati Sharma who are the petitioners.

( 5 ) SMT. Satyawati Sharma expired on 29. 9. 2003. However before her death on or about 25. 9. 1997 she filed a suit for possession, recovery of rent, mesne profits and injunction against the bank, the respondent no. 1 and it s Managing director and Manager, the Secretary, Government of India and Land and development Officer. In the said suit, the six companies who had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 30. 6. 1995 were also made parties as defendants 6 to 11. It is however conceded before me and also stated in the revision petition that the suit for recovery of possession was/is not maintainable as on the date of filing of the suit, as Ms. Satyawati Sharma was not the owner of the property. It was however submitted and argued that the respondent no. 1 was in arrears of rent and was also liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the property till 30. 6. 1995 and Ms. Satyawati Sharma was entitled to file the suit and recover the arrears of rent/damages from the respondent no. 1.

( 6 ) THE respondents 6 to 11 on or about 2. 4. 2002 moved an application under order XXII Rule 10 and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code for substitution of their names as plaintiffs in place of Ms. Satyawati Sharma. In this application it was further stated that the respondents 6 to 11 had further sold and transferred property No. 70, Golf Links, New Delhi in favour of Master nitish Sarda, Mr. Aditya Sarda, Master Preetesh Sarda and Master Siddesh Sarda. It was stated that the said respondents 6 to 11 and the subsequent purchasers should be transposed as plaintiffs and the name of Ms. Satyawati Sharma should be deleted.

( 7 ) THIS application as already noticed was filed during the lifetime of ms. Satyawati Sharma who expired on 21. 9. 2003, but was not decided during her life time.

( 8 ) AFTER death of Ms. Satyawati Sharma, an application was moved by her legal heirs under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code. Respondents 6 to 11 filed a reply to the said application and in the reply for the first time it was stated that Ms. Satyawati Sharma had executed documents dated 22. 12. 2001 including an agreement by which she had sold, transferred and assigned all her residuary rights, title and interest including her right/claim as prayed for in the Suit together with costs, charges, interest and other money coverable in favour of respondents 6 to 11. Copy of those documents including the deed of agreement was enclosed with the said reply. It was also stated in the reply that Ms. Satyawati Sharma h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document