In case of devolution of interest question of abatement does not arise.

1. The petitioners herein are third parties to O.S. No.69 of 1989 and they have filed this revision against the order made in I.A. No.452 of 1994 in O.S. No.69 of 1989, dated 27.11.1995, dismissing the said I.A. which was filed to implead themselves as petitioners in I.A.No.504 of 1993.

2. The suit was filed by one A.P.Ramalingam the respondent herein against one Ranga Gounder for specific performance viz., to direct the said Ranga Gounder to execute the sale with regard to the suit property in pursuance of the agreement dated 16.11.1987 and for delivery of possession of the suit property and for costs. The said suit was decreed and to set aside the ex parte decree, the defendant Ranga Gounder filed I.A. No.504 of 1993 and during the pendency of the said application, he died on 25.8.1993. The legal heirs of the said Ranga Gounder did not take any steps to continue the proceedings. In the meanwhile the property which is the subject matter of the suit was sold by Ranga Gounder in favour of the present petitioners Vellaya Gounder and Sevi Gounder who were third parties. On coming to know of the pendency of the suit they filed I.A. No.452 of 1994 under 0.22, Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead themselves as parties as petitioners 2 and 3 in the said I.A. No.504 of 1993 and also to continue the proceedings, in the suit for specific performance. It is their case that the defendant Ranga Gounder had executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property on 9.6.1989 itself and the defendant received suit summons after the sale and appeared and contested the suit and thereupon filed I.A. No.504 of 1993 to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was resisted by the respondent and the lower court however, by its order dated 27.11.1995 dismissed the said I.A. and aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed.

3. I have heard Mr.A.K. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.V. Ramachandran for the respondent plaintiff.

4. Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy submitted that the order of the lower court dismissing the application to implead the petitioners as petitioners 2 and 3 in I.A. No.504 of 1993 is contrary to law and vitiated by material irregularity. It is contended that the petitioners being the purchasers of the property from the defendant for valuable consideration and in good faith without notice of the plaintiffs agreement of sale in his favour they are necessary parties to the proceedings. Since the relief claimed in the suit will directly affect the right of the petitioners who are in possession of the property, they are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.

5. Per contra, MrP.V. Ramachandran contended that the application by the present petitioners who are third parties, under O.22, Rule 10 is not maintainable and the application ought to have been filed under 0.22, Rule 3, C.P.C. and since such an application has not been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant within the time stipulated by law, the suit will stand abated in so far as the deceased defendant is concerned. I am unable to agree with the said contention. In the instant case, the application was filed by the subsequent purchasers under O.22, Rule 10, C.P.C. Because of the purchase of the property during the pendency of the suit, by the petitioners, by devolution of interest, the petitioners who are the subsequent purchasers upon whom such interest has come or devolved, may continue the suit by the leave of the court. In this case, admittedly, the petitioners have purchased the property after the filing of the suit. Therefore they are entitled to continue the suit proceedings as interest is devolved upon them. Therefore, in my opinion, the present petitioners are entitled to continue the suit in the place of the original defendant.

6. It is settled law that in a case of devolution of interest, no question of abatement arises, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. The Supreme Court in the d