Order XXII Rule 10 CPC applies only during pendency; after abatement, successor entities cannot be brought on record.

Order XXII Rule 10 CPC applies only while a proceeding remains pending; once abatement has occurred or the matter has otherwise ceased to be pending, it cannot be used to bring successor entities on record or revive the proceeding. The proper course is timely substitution and, where required, an application to set aside abatement. A claimed devolution or assignment of interest also cannot be recognised if the transfer was not promptly placed on record and the contract restricts assignment without consent. The successor entities were therefore not entitled to be impleaded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether applications under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were maintainable for bringing the successor entities on record after the underlying claim and objections had already abated or stood concluded. (ii) Whether the alleged devolution or assignment of interest in the original contracting entities could be recognised in the present proceedings despite the failure to seek timely substitution and the absence of consent where required.

Issue (i): Whether applications under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were maintainable for bringing the successor entities on record after the underlying claim and objections had already abated or stood concluded.

Analysis: Rule 10 applies only while the suit or proceeding remains pending. Once abatement has occurred, or once the proceeding has ceased to be pending, the provision cannot be used to revive the matter or to continue it in the name of a successor. The proper course in such a situation is to seek setting aside of abatement in accordance with the Code, not to invoke Rule 10 after the proceeding has come to an end. The failure to move timely substitution under Order XXII Rule 3 and the absence of any application to set aside abatement were fatal.

Conclusion: The applications were not maintainable under Order XXII Rule 10 and were liable to be rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged devolution or assignment of interest in the original contracting entities could be recognised in the present proceedings despite the failure to seek timely substitution and the absence of consent where required.

Analysis: The Court found that the relevant business and contractual interests had already moved away from the original entities long before the applications were filed, yet no timely steps were taken to bring those changes on record before the Tribunal or the Court. In one chain of events, the predecessor no longer had any subsisting interest when the arbitration reference was made. In the other, the successor was not substituted within the prescribed time after devolution of interest, leading to abatement. The Court also noted that the contractual restriction on assignment without consent reinforced the infirmity in the claimed transfer of rights.

Conclusion: The alleged devolution or assignment could not be accepted for the purpose of these applications, and the successor entities were not entitled to be brought on record.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the applicants had failed to take the procedural steps necessary to preserve or continue the proceedings in their favour, and the long delay and omission could not be cured at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked only during the pendency of a proceeding, and it cannot be used after abatement or after the proceeding has otherwise ceased to be pending; where devolution of interest has occurred, timely substitution and, if necessary, setting aside of abatement are indispensable.

---