SATYA DEO TIWARI Vs. CHANDRAWATI DEVI LOYALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. This is an application under Order XXII, Rule 10 C. P. C. by one Chandra Mohan Pathak and Smt. Saroj Devi to get themselves added as party in the array of respondents, in civil revision preferred by Satyadeo Tiwari being the present revision. The applicants claimed that the interest of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 who are parties to the Revision have devolved upon them by reason of their pur chase of the suit property through a registered sale-deed dated 1st March, 1989 (Annexure-1 to the application ). Mr. Ajai Kumar Singh learned counsel for the revisionist opposes the said application on the ground that one Nirmal Kumar claiming to be the attorney of the respondents No. 1 to 3 he had referred to an agreement for sale and that the applicants have been set up by the said Nirmal Kumar purporting to defraud the court. The application is an abuse of process of law and, therefore, should not be allowed. He contends that the revision was preferred some time in the year 1990. The purchase having been made on 1st March, 1989 namely a date before to the revision was filed, the applicant had an op portunity to apply for addition of themsel ves as party in the proceedings before the court below. Since they have not done so they cannot obtain the benefit of Order XXII, Rule 10 C. P. C. According to him by reason of the Order XXII, Rule 10 C. P. C. a person whose interest is devolved he may continue with the suit if he has not done so in that event he cannot apply for being so added in the appeal or revision arising sub sequent to the devolution of the interest. In support of his contention he relied on a decision in the case of Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi AIR 1958 SC 394 and Anilkumarsinghv. Shivnathmishra (1995) Vol. (I) Alld. C J 105, JCLR 1995 (1) (SC) 178.

(2.) AFTER having heard Mr. Ajai Kumar Singh counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant it appears that the applicant had claimed devolution of the property by reason of their purchase on 1st March 1989. But they did not apply for getting themsel ves added as party in the court below. By means of the present revision the order dated 10th December, 1990 has been chal lenged. By reason of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure a proceeding may be taken on the application, may be made by or against a person claiming under a person litigating. By reason of the said provision, if the person litigating had a right to prefer a revision or appeal, a person claiming under him has also got a right to prefer an appeal or move a revision. The right to prefer ap peal or move a revision includes the right to continue with the appeal or revision. The same cannot be differentiated so as to preclude one from the other. Section 146 is a substantive provision relating to the pro cedure which is being specifically laid down in Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) IN view aforesaid the application for addition of the parties is allowed. Let the applicants be added as respondent opposite parties No. 4 and 5 respectively. Since the said applicants are already represented, no notices is required to be served. This addi tion of the applicants as added respondents shall not preclude the revisionist from chal lenging the right of the respondents added hereby and devolution of the interest upon them either in this revision or in the court below as the case may be or as and when occasion may arise. The contention of Mr. Singh that so far as the scope of this revision is concerned, in no way the added respon dent can oppose the same. The said point shall also remain open at the time of hearing of the revision, and if raised, the points shall be taken into consideration and be decided accordingly. Revision allowed. .