SITARAM DUA Vs. SARASWATI DEVI SAINY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition u/S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 17-7-1998 passed by the 6th A.D.J. Bilaspur in Misc. C.A. No. 8/97.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision are that one Gurdeo Singh filed a suit against the present applicant defendant inter alia pleading that the applicant defendant be restrained from flowing the dirty water in the lane and be also restrained from creating nuisance. The suit was contested by him up to the year 1995, though RS in the year 1992, the said Gurudeosingh transferred the property in favour of the present non-applicants. The factum of sale was not brought to the notice of the Court, nor the present applicant knew about it. The non-applicants, despite purchase of the property, did not come to the Court either under Order 1 rule 10 or under Order 22 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit continued and after the death of the said Gurudeosingh, the present non-applicant filed an application under Order 22 rule 10 for their substitution on the strength of the assignment. The said application was opposed and contested by the present applicant. The learned trial Court rejected the application holding that the present non-applicants, if are aggrieved by the acts of the present applicant, can file a fresh suit, but they cannot be permitted to be brought on record as assignees of rights of the plaintiff. The non-applicants took up the matter in appeal. The appellate Court, agreeing with the contentions of the non-applicants, allowed the same. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed this revision petition.

(3.) Shri B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently argued that as the non-applicants do not have any interest nor any interest nor any interest has devolved upon them, they cannot be brought on record under Order 22, rule 10 of the C.P.C. According to him, the present non-applicants may have an absolute right in the property, but as no interest has devolved upon them, they cannot be permitted to continue the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the interest to continue with the suit is attached with the right and as the right/ownership has been transferred/assigned in favour of the non-applicants, the rights which the deceased plaintiff had, have come to them so also the interest to continue the suit has devolved upon them. Therefore, the appellate Court was justified in directing their substitution on record.