BETWEEN THE LIVING AND THE LAWSUIT RE-EVALUATING THE PROCEDURAL AUTONOMY OF TRANSFEREES UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 10 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
AUTHOR – BHUVANESHWARI R*, DR. K JAMEELA** & FATMA AL ZAHRA**
* PHD SCHOLAR AT SCHOOL OF LAW, HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
** ASST. PROF (SG), SCHOOL OF LAW HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
*** STUDENT AT TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY
BEST CITATION – BHUVANESHWARI R, DR. K JAMEELA & FATMA AL ZAHRA, BETWEEN THE LIVING AND THE LAWSUIT RE-EVALUATING THE PROCEDURAL AUTONOMY OF TRANSFEREES UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 10 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (11) OF 2025, PG. 643-652, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344
Order 22 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 allows for the continuation of a suit by or against a person upon whom an interest in the suit has devolved during its pendency. Unlike other provisions under Order 22 that deal with death-based substitution, Rule 10 governs cases of devolution by assignment, transfer, or operation of law. The provision’s discretionary phrasing—requiring the transferee to obtain leave of the court—has led to interpretive ambiguity and procedural uncertainty, especially in contemporary litigation involving frequent property transfers, contractual assignments, and commercial debt transfers.
This paper critically examines the evolving judicial approach to Rule 10, with a particular focus on whether the leave of the court is mandatory, the status of transferees pendente lite, and the consequences of non-impleadment. Drawing on key decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the analysis situates Rule 10 within the broader procedural framework, including its interplay with Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 146 CPC. The paper also explores the practical implications of these rules in property, contract, and commercial disputes, where procedural clarity is essential to ensure substantive justice. Finally, the paper considers whether legislative refinement is warranted to align the provision with the realities of modern litigation.