2001 (7) TMI 1278 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit u/s Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Obligation to file an application for leave of the Court under Order 22 Rule 10.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit u/s Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Supreme Court addressed whether a decree passed against a predecessor-in-interest without bringing the successor-in-interest on record would render the decree a nullity, making it non-executable. The Court observed that under Order 22 Rule 10, the trial of a suit cannot end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter devolves upon another during its pendency. The suit may continue with the original party, and the person upon whom the interest devolved will be bound by the decree unless it is shown that the original party did not vigorously prosecute or colluded with the adversary. The Court emphasized that failure to apply for leave does not entail dismissal of the suit; the proceeding continues by or against the original party.

2. Obligation to file an application for leave of the Court under Order 22 Rule 10:
The Court considered whether the application for leave should be filed by the person upon whom the interest has devolved. It concluded that the language of Rule 10 does not restrict the filing of such an application to the person upon whom the interest has devolved. The duty to apply for leave initially lies upon the plaintiff, especially if the devolution fact was within their knowledge. However, the person upon whom the interest has devolved or any other interested party may also apply for leave to ensure proper representation and avoid collusion or lack of interest from the original party. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in allowing the objection under Section 47 of the Code based on the failure to bring the successor-in-interest on record.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the executing court's order, directing that the parties bear their own costs. The judgment clarified that the failure to bring the successor-in-interest on record does not make the decree void ab initio under Section 47 of the Code.