S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The appeal throws up an interesting question, i.e whether the amalgamation, of a company (which institutes a suit, that is pending) with another, results in its corporate death, and consequent abatement of the suit, or does the transferee company become entitled to claim itself to be the successor, and continue with the suit, in terms of provisions of Order 22 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code (variously described as “the Code” and “CPC”). The present judgment disposes of a plaintiff’s appeal impugning the Order dated 23.10.2007 of a learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 8275/2003 and I.A. No. 8670/2003 in Suit No. 675/1999 (“the suit”). The impugned judgment held that the plaintiff’s failure to take steps under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code (variously described as “the Code” and “CPC”) resulted in abatement of its suit.

2. The plaintiff, in its suit, had claimed a money decree, based on alleged transactions which took place in Germany. The defendants had urged that the suit was time barred; their application for rejection of plaint was however, dismissed; that order was confirmed by the Division Bench, which had left the plea open for considerati