A person who acquires an interest in the suit property during the pendency of litigation is considered an 'intermeddler' and thus a 'legal representative' under Section 2(11) of the CPC, entitled to be impleaded under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, even if a separate application to set aside abatement is not filed.

Heard on I.A.No.21567/2025, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC filed by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant vide sale-deed dated 18.4.2011 has purchased the suit property. The suit property has been assigned to the applicant and the rights in the property has been transferred to the applicant. It is further contended that the deceased appellant had sold the property to the applicant without apprising him of pendency of the litigation. It is further contended that the sole appellant has died on 25.4.2012 and prior to her death, she has sold the property in issue to the applicant, therefore, her right and interest is transferred to the applicant. Thus, it is prayed that the applicant be substituted in place of deceased appellant and be permitted to continue the appeal against the respondents.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.9 opposing the prayer of the applicant has filed reply to the application and submitted that the appeal stood automatically abated due to non-filing of proper application within 90 days from the date of death of the appellant. It is submitted that when the sale-deed executed by the appellant in favour of defendant no.2 has been declared null and void by the trial court then the appellant was not entitled to sell out the same again during the pendency of appeal to a third person, i.e. the applicant, despite of the order of maintaining status-quo in the case and not to create third party interest in the property. It is also submitted that the signature of applicant Ramswayambar on the sale-deed dated 31.3.2011 filed with memo as Document No.10752/2025 are different in the Wakalatnama and affidavit filed in support of the application. Thus, it is contended that in absence of application for setting aside abatement, the present application filed with unexplained delay of more than 13 years is not maintainable.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Order 22 Rule 10 CPC provides for procedure in case of assignment before final order in a suit. The said provision is also applicable in the appeals arising out the judgment and decree passed in the suit according to Order 22 Rule 11 CPC. It is the case of the applicant that he has right, title and interest in the property on the basis of sale-deed dated 18.4.2011 executed during the pendency of the appeal. From bare perusal of the order-sheet dated 27.1.2010 of the appeal, it is found that this Court while hearing the application for temporary injunction has restrained the respondents from creating any third party interest in respect of suit property and to maintain status-quo, which was confirmed vide order dated 06.08.2015. However, it is apparent from the order-sheet that the temporary injunction has been granted against the respondents and respondents are directed to maintain status quo, however, the appellant has not been restrained to create any third party right in the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that despite status quo order, the sale deed has been executed, has got no force and is hereby rejected.

Now, the question in regard to devolution of interest by way of transfer deed executed in favour of the applicant filed alongwith the covering memo Document No.10752/2025, whether the same is covered under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC or not is to be examined.

Order 22 Rule 10 CPC provides that in other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest is devolved.

Undoubtedly, the right and interest has been created and devolved upon the purchaser, i.e. the applicant in the present case, on the basis of aforesaid sale deed. The contention of the respondent in regard to not having better title than respondent or defendant no.2 in whose favour the earlier sale deed