Jawasharlas vs Saraswatibai Babulal Joshi and Others

This revision application by the original defendant is directed agasit the order passed bythe trial court permitting non-application NO. 5 who climed tobe the assignee of the interest of the oppnents Nos. 1 to 4 Original plaintiff toconituue thesuit under s. 22 R, 10 of theCode of Civil Procedure.

The Opponents Nos. 1 of brought Small Cause Suir No. 687 of 1981 for possessin against the applicant on the ground that permission todetermine thelease of the applicant was obtained by the Oppents Nos. 1 of 4 formtheRent Controller and pursuant to the permission a notice todetermine thelease was issued. The suit was resisted bythe applicant contending that thenotice had been wairved had thOppents Nos. 1 to 4 and they agreed tocontinue the lease. The Oppensent No. 5 filed and application unde O. 22, R. 10 CPC for leave to continue that suit the being added as plantiff No. 4 According to him the Oppennts Nos. 1 to 4 assigned their interest as well as the right tocontinue the suit tohimby the sale deed dated 29-1-1982 and inview of the assignment and devolution of interest uponhim he has entitled tocontiune the suit.

the application was resisted by therevision applicant on the ground that the notice had beenwaived by the oppents Nos. 1 to 4 and so the permission granted by the Rent Controller to determine the lease would not enure for thebenefit of theOppenent No. 5 The trial Court held to the basis of thecertified copy of the sale deed produced bythe Oppenent No. 5 and his affidavit that there was assignkment of the interset of Oppenents Nos.1 4 in favour of Oppendent no5 andgranted him leave to contimue the suit.

The first contention of Shri G. B, Lohia, learned counsel for the applicant was that as there was no enquirty by thetrial court before granting leave ot the Court before granting leave to the Oppenent No. 5 to continue the suit order allowing the application was bad Order, 22 R, 10Civil P. C. is as follows.

"10 (1) In others case of an assignment, creation or devolution of anyinterest during the pendency of a suit the suit may by, leave of the court, be continued by or against theperson toor upon whom such interest has come or devoled.

The attachment of the decree pending an appeal thereforem shall be deemed to be an interest entitiling the person who producred such attachment to the benefit of sub-r. (1)."

The contention is that before before theleave can be granted theCourt must accertain whether the interest has come or devolved on the person claiming tobe the assignee and that unless there is an enquiry in respect of the right and the right is established after a full hearing, leave cannot be granted. Now the object of granting leave is to enable proceedings to be contiued by or againt the person acquiring interest in the subjectmatter the words "upon whom such interest has come or devolved being merely descriptive of the person inrespect of whom such leave maybe granted. The pharaeology of sub-r (1) of R. 10 does not indicate that before the leave is granted there has to be a finding regarding the validity of the assignment or devlution.

shri Lohia urged that such an enquiry is necessaryinrespect of the categories mentioned in Rr. 1 to 9 of O. 212, Civil P. C. before thelegal representatives are allowed to be brough on record sothat the suit can be continued when a party tothesuit dies and there is no reason why an expeption should be made in the case of person covered by R. 10 Now, R. 5 requres that where a question arises ast o whether any person is or not a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shallbe determinedby the Court The opening words of Sub-r. (1) make it clear that the cases covered by R. 10 are a class part the form cases covered by Rules 1 to 9 and the option tocontinue thesuit is dependent upon the leave the of Court which the party does not have an absolute right to ask for. Another difference as pointed out in Mull''s Commentary on Civil Procedure Code, Eleventh Edition at page 720, lies in the consequences of not bringin the assignee or transferee of record. Thesuit does not become defective by an assignment pendente life and theassignee is not preculded form recovering the debt due. The trial of a suit cannot be arrested merely by reason of the devolution of the interest of the plaintiff. The successor in interest maywith the leave of the Court continue maywiththeleave of tehcourt continue the suit. If the does not the original plaintiff may. The assignor does not by reason of the assignment lose his right does not continue the proceedings. The positiondoes nt obtain in respect of the categories which are covered by Rr. 1 to 4 of PO. 22 Civil P. C. Invies of this difference an full- scale enquiry about the existence and validityof the assignment of devolution would not be necessary at the stage of granting leave. It is expected that the exisence or otherwise or the rights or atttracks or defences, which may be open to other parties on merits should be gone into at thestage of granting leave These have to be dealt with at a later stage when the suit comes for trial.

In Seethai, Achi, Meyappa Chettiar AIR 1934 Mah 337 it was observed.

"If there is question comon to the parties onrecord and a starnger as regards thesubject matter of the suit or any portion thereof, if should be tried once for all byallowing the strangertobe made a party.......... Morever O. 22 R. 10 Civil P. C. is not confined only to cases of undisputed assignment creation or devolution of interest It is open totheCourt tomake an inquiry and pass the necessaryorder."

In the case the lower Court had thought it fit to made that enquiry and it was held that the exercise of he discretion cannot be easily interfered with in revision but the proposition that full scale enquiry into existence validity or the assignment be gone is not necessary at the stage of granting leave was never in question.

Shri Lohia urged that he Full Bench of he Kerala High Curt in Goutami Devi Sitamony Vs. Madhavan Sivarajan, after considering the scheme of O. 22 of the Civil P. C. observed that an assignee can make an application for leave to continue the suit so long as thee is suit, so far it concerns the assignee on the file of the court. the suit there had abated by death of a party and it was observed that in a suit which is not subsisting there is no scope for seeking continuance. It was only logical that in case where the Suit has stated the as cannot there after seek to be added as a party to the action. It is difficult to see how this observation can have relevance to the facts of the presences. Shri Lohia''s contention which that if the notice is waived there is noting whichcould be assigned. The contention will have to be examined on merits. Clearly it does not have the same effect as abetment on account of the death of a party as them there will be not suit in subsistence.

I am fortified inthis view by the observations of the Allehabad High Court in Krishna Behari Goel Vs. Raj Mangal Persad and Others, where the contention was that the assignment in favour of the opposite parties was invalid. The question had been raised before the trial Court but it had not given a finding on it and the appellate Court had not mentioned the objection. The Court observed;--

"At the moment it was concerned only with the question whether the opposite parties should be given permission to continue the suit or not. They claimed to be assignees and as assignees they could be granted permission Whether they could get therelief or not was a different question to be answered after the suit was tried.

At the time the question would arise whether the assignment in their favour was valid or not. If the assignment was found to be invalid they would not be granted the relief even if they were added as plaintiffs."

In Ebrahim Mulla v. Chhatrasinhji AIR 1951 Sau 20 it was held that the mere fact that the assignment is denied by the opposite party is not a sufficient ground alone to enable the Court of refuse leave and where prima facie the right the of applicant ot be brought on record is established the question as to the validity of the transfer should be decided in the suit itself rather than in application under O. 22, R. 10 Devkinandan Lal Vs. Jogendra Prasad and Others, on which the applicant relied is of no assistance because there the assignee was held not entitled to continue the suit which had abated.

In C. Wright Neville V. E.H. Freser AIR 19044 Nag 137 it was pointed out that an assignee pendent lite is not bound to file and application during the pendency of the suit it his interest is protected. It is only when the finds that his interest is in in jeopardy and not likely to be protected by the assignor that it is necessary for him to apply him It was held that the mere fact that the assignment was disputed was no ground for refusing leave and the court could enquire into the factor and validity of the assignment.

Having regard to the provision of O. 22 R, 10 Civil P. C. and the authorities to which I have referred it is apparent that no detailed enquiry the at stage of granting leave is contemplated. The court had only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its direction in granting for leave for continuing the suit by or against the person on whom the interest had devolved by assignment or devolution and the question about the existence and validity of the assignment of devolution canbe considered at the trial of the suit on merits. This being the legal position the order passed by the learned trial judge was correct and no interference with the discretion exercised by him is called for.

In the result rule is discharged with costs.

Rule discharged.