ORDER :- The applicant challenges the order of the trial Court impleading the opposite parties as plaintiffs along with the original plaintiff.

2. The suit was instituted by Sukhhu against the applicant for an injunction to restrain him from interfering with his possession over certain occupancy tenancy. During the pendency of the suit Sukhhu died and Shrimati Surjita and others applied for being brought on the record as his legal representatives. While that application was pending they transferred their interest in the property in dispute to the opposite parties. Thereupon the opposite parties applied for leave of the Court to carry on the suit under O. 22, R. 10. Their application was opposed by the applicant who contended that the assignment of occupancy rights in their favour by Surjita and others was invalid, that under O. 22, R. 10 an assignee from the original plaintiff or defendant can be granted permission, but not an assignee from a legal representative of the original plaintiff and that the right that the plaintiff had claimed was a personal right which did not survive his death. The application of the opposite parties was allowed by the trial Court and the opposite parties have now been added as plaintiffs.

3. The view taken by the trial Court is correct. There is no justification for holding that the provision in O. 22, R. 10 applies to a devolution, assignment or creation of an interest by the original plaintiff and not by his legal representative. The words "plaintiff" and "defendant" are not used in that provision at all. It simply refers to assignment, creation or devolution of any interest; this means that it applies in the case of every assignment, creation or devolution of an interest, whether by the original parties to the suit or by their legal representatives. There would have been no justification for making any distinction between an assignment, creation or devolution of an interest by the original parties to the suit and an assignment etc. by legal representatives of the original parties. Therefore, it could not have been contemplated by the Legislature that the words "an assignment etc." refer to an assignment by the original parties and not by their legal representatives.

Reliance was placed upon - Mahindra Chandra Nandi v. Ram Kumar Lal Bhagat, AIR 1922 P.C. 304 (A). The question whether the provision of O.22, R. 10 applies to an assignment etc. by the original parties or also an assignment by their legal representatives did not arise before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee and their Lordships never held that it applies to an assignment by the original parties and not to an assignment by their legal representatives. In the case before their Lordships there was only a lease granted by a defendant and that lease was held to be not an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest within the meaning of O. 22, R. 10. When there was no assignment etc. in that case the other question, whether an assignee from a legal representative of an original party can apply or not, did not also. When their Lordships, while explaining the provision, remarked on p. 306 that :

"The order contemplates cases of devolution of interest from some original party to the suit, whether plaintiff or defendant, upon some one else", they did not intend to say that it contemplates cases of devolution of interest only from the original parties to the suit and not from their legal representatives. In -Champalal Bansilal v. Mt. Sona Bai, AIR 1946 Nag 164 (B), the above quoted observation of their Lordships was relied upon. In that case the application under O. 22, R. 10 was made by an assignee from one claiming to be an heir of the deceased plaintiff, but the so called heir had not applied for substitution of his name in place of that of the deceased plaintiff. It was found by the Courts that the so called heir was not the heir of the deceased plaintiff and that consequently the applicants were not entitled to be substituted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document