Respondent-plaintiffs sought dismissal of a regular second appeal on the ground that the original defendant had sold her share during the appeal. The judge held rights crystallise at suit institution but subsequent events may be noted, and a transferor may continue litigation under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC; the application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Mohammed Ali vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors.
RSA No. 4241 of 2013
05.06.2026: Present:
Mr Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Tarun Brakta, Advocate, for the appellant/nonapplicant.
Mr Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent/applicants.
CMP No. 3237 of 2025
The applicants/respondents/plaintiffs have filed the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the dismissal of the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicants/ plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against defendant Smt. Anita, which was decreed on 31.12.2010. Anita filed the civil appeal in the Court of Learned District Judge, Sirmaur. She had already sold her share in favour of Mohmad Ali through registered Sale deed No.77 on 10.02.2011. She had lost the right title and interest in the suit property. The appellant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Sirmour, H.P. However, this application could not have been entertained in an appeal, which was not maintainable. The sale transaction was executed in utter disobedience of the finding of the learned Trial
2
Court. The impleadment of the appellant in the appeal was of no avail because the appeal was not maintainable. The present appeal is also not maintainable; hence, it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
3
maintainable, and the order of impleadment will not benefit the non-applicant. The present appeal filed by the non-applicant is also not maintainable. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the appeal filed by the non-applicant be dismissed as not maintainable.
submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
4
SCC 363 = 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2812 , that rights and liabilities stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit, but the Court can take note of the subsequent events in appropriate cases. It was observed: -
"11. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has the power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor &General Traders, 1975 1 SCC 770 , this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the court and
5
having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the court, cannot be blinked at. The court may, in such cases, bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or rule of fair play is violated, for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is an absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed."
6
devolution of the interest during the pendency of the suit and enables the person upon whom the interest has devolved to come on record. Therefore, the normal rule is that the suit is to be continued by a person by whom it was filed or by the person against whom it was filed. The exception is that the transfree can come on record with the leave of the Court. It was laid down by the Patna High Court in Mahanth Sukhdeo Das v. Kashi Prasad Tiwari , 1958 SCC OnLine Pat 73: AIR 1958 Pat 630 , that the plaintiff can continue with the suit even if the property is transferred. It was observed:
76. Then, there is a further consideration. Even assuming that the contention of Mr Das was correct, the plaintiffs cannot be unsuited in the present appeal. The effect of the operation of the Act is that during the pendency of this litigation, the interest of the plaintiffs devolved upon the State. Notwithstanding this devolution, they will be entitled to continue this litigation. Sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of Order XXII of the CPC provides that in cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. Ordinarily, notwithstanding the devolution of the interest, the suit may be continued by or against the original party.
79. The litigation will continue in his name for the benefit of his successors. Their Lordships further held that no doubt rule 10 gives the Court a discretion in allowing or refusing an application by the successors-in-interest to continue the
7
litigation, but leave should not be unreasonably refused. In this case, notice of this appeal was served upon the State, and the State has not preferred to appear in this appeal and to be added as a party.
80. The plaintiffs, therefore, can continue this appeal, and the result of this appeal will be binding upon the State. A co-sharer in possession of bakasht lands can at best claim only his share in such lands, and he cannot justifiably maintain that the entire bakasht lands have been statutorily settled with him. Putting the defence at the highest, the plaintiffs' interests have devolved upon the State, and so far as the interest of the defendants is concerned, they have now obtained a statutory settlement of their share in the bakasht lands.
Though the aforesaid rule enables the transferee to continue the suit, it is no bar to the transferor continuing the suit for the benefit of his successor. The position of law was settled in Rai Charan Mandal v. Biswanath Mandal [A.I.R. 1915 Cal. 103.] . Their Lordships observed that the plaintiff who has instituted a litigation may prosecute it to its conclusion notwithstanding a devolution of his interest in the property. The litigation will continue in his name for the benefit of his successor. Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an alternative procedure that guards against the danger that the original plaintiff, being no longer interested in the proceedings, may not vigorously prosecute them or may even collude with the adversary. The same view was taken in Joti Lal Sah v. Sheodhayan Prashad Sah [A.I.R. 1936 Pat. 420.]
in Ambaji Vs. Shoranappa 1974 STPL 511 Karnataka,
8
wherein it was observed:
12.
This Court also recognised this principle in
Shakti Chand vs Chamaru ILR 1974(HP) 1154, wherein it was observed:
The law does not require that if property is transferred during the pendency of an appeal, and the transferors are already on the record, it is still necessary that the transferee should be brought on the record. A discretion has been vested in the court, and all that is necessary to see is that the discretion is properly exercised. The mere circumstance that the property has been transferred during the pendency of the appeal does not give a right to the transferee to be brought on the record.
said to be incompetent on the date of institution of the suit.
9
scope of Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC and are not relevant.
RSA No. 4241 of 2013
List the matter for hearing in due course.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
05th June, 2026 (ravinder)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed by a transferor who sold the suit property during the pendency is maintainable under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hukum Chandra v. Nemi Chand JainRelied on¶7
Hukum Chandra v. Nemi Chand Jain, (2019) 13 SCC 363 = 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2812 · Who else cites this
Mahanth Sukhdeo Das v. Kashi Prasad TiwariRelied on¶9
Mahanth Sukhdeo Das v. Kashi Prasad Tiwari, 1958 SCC OnLine Pat 73: AIR 1958 Pat 630 · Who else cites this
Uchhab Patra v. Brundaban MallikRelied on¶10
Uchhab Patra v. Brundaban Mallik, 1968 SCC OnLine Ori 144: AIR 1969 Ori 142 · Who else cites this
Ambaji v. ShoranappaRelied on¶11
Ambaji Vs. Shoranappa 1974 STPL 511 Karnataka
Shakti Chand v. ChamaruRelied on¶12
Shakti Chand vs Chamaru ILR 1974(HP) 1154 · Who else cites this
Rikhu Dev vs Som DassDistinguished¶14
Rikhu Dev vs Som Dass AIR 1975 SCC 2159 · Who else cites this
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash UniversityDistinguished¶14
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University (2001) 6 SCC 534 · Who else cites this
Jaskirat Datwani vs. Vidyvati & OthersDistinguished¶14
Jaskirat Datwani vs. Vidyvati & Others (2002) 5 SCC 647 · Who else cites this
Government of Orissa vs. Ashok Transport Agency & othersDistinguished¶14
Government of Orissa vs. Ashok Transport Agency & others (2005) 1 SCC 536 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammed Ali
Ramesh Kumar
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
