Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were plaintiffs No.2 to 6 in a suit, filed a Regular Appeal (R.A.No.31/2022) before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 (Smt. Priyanka) filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to be impleaded as a party, claiming that she had purchased the decree from the original plaintiff No.1 (since deceased) by way of a registered assignment deed dated 19.09.2022. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 29.11.2025, holding that the assignment was valid and that the assignee was entitled to continue the proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the scope of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, which permits a person who acquires an interest in a pending suit or decree to be impleaded only with the leave of the court. The court held that the assignment of a decree during the pendency of an appeal without prior permission of the court is invalid and cannot be the basis for impleadment. The court distinguished Section 146 CPC, which allows a person claiming under a decree-holder to apply for execution, but clarified that it does not override the requirement of court permission under Order 22 Rule 10 for impleadment in a pending proceeding. The court also referred to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but held that it does not automatically entitle an assignee to be impleaded. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, directing that the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC be dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 22 Rule 10 - Assignment of Decree - Impleadment - Assignment of decree during pendency of appeal without court permission is invalid - The court held that any assignment or creation of interest pendente lite requires prior permission of the court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, and without such permission, the assignee cannot be impleaded as a party - The impugned order allowing impleadment was quashed (Paras 1-10).
B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 146 - Assignment of Decree - Impleadment - Section 146 CPC does not override Order 22 Rule 10 - The court held that Section 146 CPC, which allows a person claiming under a party to apply for execution, does not dispense with the requirement of court permission under Order 22 Rule 10 for impleadment in a pending appeal - The assignee must first obtain leave of the court (Paras 8-10).
C) Transfer of Property Act - Section 52 - Lis Pendens - Assignment of Decree - Doctrine of lis pendens applies - The court noted that any transfer of property during pendency of litigation is subject to the result of the suit, but this does not automatically entitle the assignee to be impleaded without court permission under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an assignee of a decree can be impleaded in a pending appeal without prior permission of the court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, and whether such assignment is valid when made during pendency of litigation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara in R.A.No.31/2022, and directed that the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC be dismissed.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
- assignment of decree
- impleadment
- pendente lite transfer
- court permission
- Section 146 CPC
- Section 52 Transfer of Property Act
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (06) 33
WP No. 2605 of 2026 (GM-CPC)
Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti
Sri. Sunil S Rao, Sri. T Seshagiri Rao, Sri. K. Shashikiran Shetty, Sri. Varun M. R., Sri. Ashwin G. Raj, Sri. Yathish S
Smt. Giriyamma and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara allowing an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in a Regular Appeal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (plaintiffs No.2 to 6) sought quashing of the order dated 29.11.2025 passed in R.A.No.31/2022 allowing the application of respondent No.1 for impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the trial court's order allowing impleadment of respondent No.1 as an assignee of the decree without prior permission of the court, which they contended was invalid under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara) by order dated 29.11.2025 allowed the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in R.A.No.31/2022, holding that the assignment of decree in favor of respondent No.1 was valid and she was entitled to be impleaded.
Issues
Whether an assignee of a decree can be impleaded in a pending appeal without prior permission of the court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC?
Whether Section 146 CPC overrides the requirement of court permission under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of an assignee?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the assignment of decree during pendency of appeal without court permission is invalid and the assignee cannot be impleaded without leave of the court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Respondent No.1 argued that she had validly purchased the decree and was entitled to be impleaded under Section 146 CPC and Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, any assignment or creation of interest in a pending suit or decree requires prior permission of the court. Without such permission, the assignee cannot be impleaded as a party. Section 146 CPC does not override this requirement. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not automatically entitle an assignee to be impleaded.
Judgment Excerpts
Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2025 passed in an application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC in R.A.No.31/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara, the petitioners/plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are before this Court.
The court held that any assignment or creation of interest pendente lite requires prior permission of the court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, and without such permission, the assignee cannot be impleaded as a party.
Procedural History
The petitioners (plaintiffs No.2 to 6) filed a Regular Appeal (R.A.No.31/2022) before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as an assignee of the decree. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 29.11.2025. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 09.06.2026, and pronounced the order on 23.06.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 22 Rule 10, Section 146
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 52
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
