G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgement of Additional District Judge, Jhalawar.
(2.) THE suit of the plaintiffs was based on default. According to the plaintiffs the defendant did not pay rent amounting to Rs. 27. 50 and, therefore, ejectment was claimed. Notice was served on February 18, 1970. THE defendant contested the suit The trial Court after recording the evidence dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that tenancy was yearly and not monthly and the notice was invalid being not given in the name of the temple Shri Shantinathji. The first appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs reversing the finding of the trial court. An application was made under order 22 Rules 10 and 11 C. P. C by Mrs. Kamla Jain alleging that on August 16, 1975 the disputed shop has been purchased by the applicants Rakhabh Chand, Shanti Kumar and others. This application was filed before this Court on August 3, 1983 and my brother Justice Bhargava ordered that this application be decided at the time of final hearing of the case. Mr. Purohit's objection is that the applicants, who are purchasers, cannot be joined as parties. However, according to Order 22 Rule 10 C. P. C. in case of assignment during the pendency of the suit, the suit may be continued by or against the person who or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(3.) IN the first appellate Court an objection was raised by the defendant that since there has been assignment, the suit should be dismissed. On October 10, 1975 this application was dismissed and the defendant's prayer was rejected on the basis of Order 22 Rule 10 C. P. C. I am of the opinion that as provided by Order 22 Rule 10 C. P. C. in case of assignment and such transfers pending the suit, the suit can be continued by or against the person who or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. No provision to the contrary has been shown by Mr. Purohit on account of which the suit or appeal is liable to be dismissed on such a transfer. ;