Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in a regular appeal (R.A.No.31/2022) pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara, challenged an order dated 29.11.2025 allowing an application filed by respondent No.1 under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for impleadment. The respondent No.1 claimed to be an assignee of the decree in the original suit (O.S.No.56/2010) based on an assignment deed dated 20.05.2024. The trial court allowed the application, holding that the assignment deed was marked as an exhibit and that the assignor had no objection. The petitioners contended that the assignment deed was not proved in accordance with law, as the attesting witness was not examined and they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine. The High Court examined the requirements of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, which allows a person on whom an interest has devolved by assignment to be made a party, but only if the assignment is duly proved. The court noted that the assignment deed was a registered document but its execution was not proved by examining the attesting witnesses. The trial court had merely marked the document without giving the petitioners an opportunity to cross-examine the attesting witness. The High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the applicant to establish the assignment, and mere marking of the document is insufficient. The court also observed that the assignor's no-objection does not dispense with the requirement of proof. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing that the respondent No.1 be given an opportunity to prove the assignment deed by examining the attesting witnesses and allowing the petitioners to cross-examine them.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 22 Rule 10 - Assignment of Decree - Impleadment - The court held that an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment based on assignment of a decree must be supported by proper proof of the assignment deed, including examination of attesting witnesses and opportunity for cross-examination. Mere marking of the assignment deed without proof is insufficient. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 22 Rule 10 - Assignment of Decree - Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the applicant claiming assignment to prove the execution and validity of the assignment deed. The court must be satisfied that the assignee has acquired the right to sue or interest in the decree. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure Code - Order 22 Rule 10 - Assignment of Decree - Cross-Examination - The court held that denying the opposite party the opportunity to cross-examine the attesting witness of the assignment deed vitiates the order allowing impleadment. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the assignee of a decree without proper proof of assignment and without affording opportunity to the plaintiffs to cross-examine the attesting witness.
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 remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court was directed to give an opportunity to respondent No.1 to prove the assignment deed by examining the attesting witnesses and to allow the petitioners to cross-examine them, and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
- assignment of decree
- impleadment
- burden of proof
- assignment deed
- cross-examination
- right to sue
- transfer of interest
