HEM RAJ Vs. MULKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of City Judge. Jammu, refusing leave to the defendants petitioners, to amend their written statement by taking an additional plea, that the suit was not maintainable, because the plaintiff respondent had lost his right in the suit property, as a consequence of transfer of the property made by him during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) MR . Sehgal appearing for the petitioners has contended that the ground relied upon by the trial court for rejecting the application is not sound. The trial court has refused to grant permission on the ground that the application is a belated one. Mr. Sehgal, in my opinion, is perfectly justified in urging that the trial court was not right in rejecting the application on the ground of delay simplicitor. Even if there was any delay in making the application, it was not a valid ground for refusing the prayer, in case the opposite party could be compensated by adequate costs. Be that as it may, the order of the trial court cannot still be called in question. The transfer, as alleged by the defendants themselves, has been made during the pendency of the suit. Such a transfer cannot take away the right of the plaintiff to continue the proceedings in the suit. To such a case, provisions of R. 10 of Order 22 C.P.C. will be attracted, and it would be for the transferee to make an application and seek leave to continue the suit by being made a party to it. He cannot, as a matter of right, interpose in the proceedings and prosecute or defend the suit, as the case may be. He must, either seek leave of the court, as already indicated, or otherwise be bound by the result of the litigation. The transferor by reason of the transfer does not lose his right to continue to prosecute or defend the suit till its logical conclusion, and any decision made in it will be binding on the transferee, as if he was himself before the court. This principle is well settled. (See Karka Somula and others V. Reddy Appalanaidu and others, A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 507, Mahanth Sukhdeo Das and another V. Kashi Prasad Tiwari and others, A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 630 (F.B.), Gwalior and Northern India Transport Co. Ltd. and another V. Dinkar Durga Shankar Joshi and another, A.I.R. 1955 Madhya Bharat 214, and the State of Madras, represented by the Collector, Bellary V. Javali Govindappa alias Rindayya Firm by partner Surasetty Bessappa and others, A.I.R. 1954 Madras766).

(3.) WHETHER or not, therefore, the respondent had lost his right in the suit property by virtue of its transfer during the pendency of the suit, he had still a right to continue it to its final decision and the amendment sought by the petitioners was wholly inconsequential. No interference is, therefore, called for with the order passed by the trial court, though for a reason different from the one given by it.