5. As far as factual position is concerned, there is no dispute that the Appellant is assignor of Standard Chartered Bank which was in turn assignee of ICICI Bank Limited when the O.A. was dismissed on 3rd March, 2009. Subsequent thereto, after execution of the deed of assignment, Appellant moved an application for substitution as well as recall of the order dated 3rd March, 2009 and for restoration of the proceedings. Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC provides that creation of any interest during the pendency of a suit continues against the person upon whom such interest has devolved, even after passing of the order. Section 146 C.P.C. provides that where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. Explanation attached to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order. Both these provisions have been taken care of in the judgment of Upendra Nath (supra) wherein Hon’ble High Court of Orissa has discussed the provisions and has also placed reliance upon the same. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Raj Kumar -vs- Sardari Lal & Others reported in 2004 SAR (Civil) 181. It was held in Upendra Nath (supra) that law of procedure is handmade of justice and has to be essentially interpreted to sub-serve this paramount objectives. Any exposition of the procedural law defeating this salubrious imperative, has to be eschewed.
