ORDER
S.K. Pande, J.
1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 26-8-2000, passed by 12th ADJ, Jabalpur in M.C.A. No. 59/98 affirming the order dated 3-9-98, passed by 11th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in M.J.C. No. 77/97 whereby application under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC filed by the applicant has been dismissed.
2. Plaintiff/non-applicants – Awadh Bihari and Govind instituted C.S. No. 325-A/94 in the Court of Civil Judge seeking eviction of tenant/defen-dant/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 on grounds under Section 12(1)(a)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to “the Act” for convenience). The suit was decreed ex pane vide judgment dated 6-10-94. Defendant/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 thereafter filed application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree in C.S. No. 325-A/94. Plaintiff/non-applicants Awadh Bihari, Govind Soni, vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 4-3-96 sold the suit house to the applicant Gous Mohd. and specifically assigned the decree passed by 10th Civil Judge, Class-II, in C.S. No. 325-A/94 in favour of applicant. Since the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC is pending, applicant filed application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 146, CPC for substitution of his name in the proceedings. This application being resisted by the defendant/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 was rejected by Civil Judge in M.J.C. No. 77/97 vide order dated 3-9-98. Applicant filed M.C.A. No. 59/98 and the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 26-8-2000, passed by 12th ADJ, Jabalpur.
3. The impugned order was passed by the Court below mainly on the basis that a decree passed under Section 12 (1) (a) (e) of the Act could not have been assigned and the sale deed dated 4-3-96 was executed by the plaintiff/non-applicant Nos. 6 to 7 after judgment/decree dated 6-4-94 passed by Civil Judge. Order 22 Rule 10, CPC provides procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit. Jn cases of 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. Order 22 Rule 10, CPC must be read with reference to Section 146 of CPC. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him.
4. In Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Anr., AIR 1958 SC 394, it has been held, Section 146 was introduced with the object of facilitating the exercise of rights by persons in whom they come to be vested by devolution or assignment and being a beneficent provision should be liberally and so as to advance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense.
5. The decree passed in C.S. No. 125-A/94 together with the suit house was sold to the applicant vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 4-3-96. Prior to this application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC has been filed by the defen-dant/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 on 11-1-96. During the pendency of the proceeding in M.C.J. No. 77/97, purchaser of the suit house and the assignment of the decree passed in C.S. No. 325-A/94 is a proper person to be permitted to join the proceedings in M.J.C. No. 77/97 alongwith plaintiff/non-applicants Awadh Bihari, Govind.
6. The Court below ought not to have been influenced by the fact that in C.S. No. 325-A/94 the decree under Section 12 (1) (a) (e) of the Act has been passed. Any part of decree assigned to the applicant vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 3-9-98 may not be executable must not have been considered at this stage. Whether after setting aside of ex parte decree in C.S. No. 325-A/94, the suit could further proceed with reference to Sale Deed dated 3-9-98 may be a question for determination at subsequent stage.
7. In any case application under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC as filed by the applicant on the basis of Regd. Sale Deed dated 3-9-98 whereby suit house has been sold and decree passed in favour of the vendor also has been assigned, deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside, instead application under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC filed by the applicant in M.J.C. No. 77/97 is allowed. Parties to bear the costs.