Shri Ram vs Ram Prakash Srivastava

Gopi Nath, J.—This revision is directed against an order passed by the 1st Addi. Munsif, Kannauj, dated 7-10-77. By the impugned order the learned Munsif allowed an application of one Ram Prakash for being impleaded as a Plaintiff to the suit. The suit was filed by Smt. Ram Kali for specific performance of an agreement of re-purchase in her favour dated 29th October, 1971. It appears that Smt. Ram Kali had made an agreement in favour of the opposite party Ram Prakash for the sale of the property after she had obtained a re-purchase of the same. Smt. Ram Kali died on 24th October, 1975. Two sets of persons applied for substitution in her place. One set consisted of Smt. Munni Devi and Ors. through their guardian Daya Ram. The other set consisted of Ram Prakash opposite party. The Court below dismissed the application of Munni Devi and others, and allowed that of Ram Prakash on the ground that he being a person claiming under Smt. Ram Kali was entitled to be impleaded. Aggrieved, the applicant has come up in revision.

It was urged by learned Counsel for the applicant that Ram Prakash was not a legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC . The Court below held that he could be impleaded as he claimed a right under Ram Kali. The suit filed by Smt. Ram Kali was one for specific performance of a contract of re-purchase. A contract to re-sell the property to the vendor is assignable under law --See Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar AIR 1928 PC 174. u/s 23(b) of the Specific Relief Act a contract of sale containing an option of repurchase is assignable, in the absence of a contract to the contrary and the option of re-purchase can be enforced by the assignee--See Sinnakaruppa Gounder v. M. Karuppuswami Gounder AIR 1965 Mad 506 and Pannalal and Another Vs. Ramnarayan and Another, . In Panna Lal and another, it was held that an agreement to sell the property which was the subject matter of a contract of sale and re-purchase by the vendor amounted to an assignment of the right of re-purchase and the assignee could enforce that right u/s 23(a) of the Specific Relief Act. An assignee under Order 22 Rules 9 and 10 CPC can continue a suit by getting impleaded in place of the person whose interest has been assigned to him. learned Counsel for the applicant urged that Rule 9 of Order 22 CPC was inapplicable as the opposite party was not an assignee of an insolvent and Rule 10 CPC was inapplicable as the assignment had not been made during the pendency of the suit. These provisions ought not to be construed too narrowly. In Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Another, and in Zila Singh and Others Vs. Hazari and Others, it was held that provisions of Section 146 and Order 22 Rule 10 CPC should be construed liberally. The opposite party, in the circumstances, was rightly held competent to continue the suit and his implead-ment does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

The revision fails and is dismissed. But In the circumstances we make no order as to costs.