M/S. YASH SHREE REALTORS v. SITABAI NAIK (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS 1) SMT. LILA NAGIN NAIK AND ORS
Impleadment of Successor-in-Interest under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC: Absence of Limitation Period and Non-Applicability of Abatement in Devolution of Interest.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11252
Decision Date: 05-03-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC; Section 146 of the CPC; Limitation Act, 1963; Doctrine of Lis Pendens; Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Facts: The original plaintiffs filed a suit for possession in 1974, which was decreed in their favour in 2011. During the pendency of the suit and shortly after the decree, several plaintiffs transferred their rights, title, and interest through registered deeds, eventually culminating in the applicant, M/s. Yash Shree Realtors (a partnership firm comprising some original plaintiffs), becoming the sole owner in 2012. However, the applicant did not seek impleadment until March 2025, after a delay of approximately 14 years. The application was triggered when the defendants questioned the status of the original respondents in the pending first appeal.
- Procedural Posture: This is an interim application filed by the successor-in-interest under Order XXII Rule 10 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a pending First Appeal before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: Whether a successor-in-interest can be impleaded as a respondent in an appeal under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC after a significant delay of 14 years, and whether such an application is barred by limitation or affected by the abatement of the suit?
- Holding: Yes, the application is allowed. The court held that there is no prescribed period of limitation for an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the principle of abatement does not apply to cases of devolution of interest.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Order XXII Rule 10 is based on the principle that a trial or appeal should not end merely because interest in the subject matter has devolved upon another. Unlike Rules 3 and 4 of Order XXII (which deal with death and carry strict limitation periods), Rule 10 provides a continuous right to apply with the leave of the Court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like "Saila Bala Dassi v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi" and "Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University", the Court noted that a transferee pendente lite is a representative-in-interest and should be allowed to protect their rights. The 14-year delay was attributed to a bonafide belief that the firm was an "alter ego" of the original plaintiffs. Finding no malafides or prejudice to the defendants, the Court condoned the delay while imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 to compensate the appellants.
🔒 For Members Only