https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171080 In cases of devolution of interest during pendency of a suit, omission to implead the successor-in-interest does not by itself render the decree a nullity. A decree is open to collateral challenge in execution only if it is void for want of inherent jurisdiction or otherwise void ab initio; a merely erroneous or voidable decree cannot be resisted under Section 47 on that basis. The text also states that leave to continue the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 is not confined to the successor alone: the plaintiff or any interested person may seek it, since the provision is enabling and intended to secure effective continuation of the proceeding. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171080 In cases of devolution of interest during pendency of a suit, omission to implead the successor-in-interest does not by itself render the decree a nullity. A decree is open to collateral challenge in execution only if it is void for want of inherent jurisdiction or otherwise void ab initio; a merely erroneous or voidable decree cannot be resisted under Section 47 on that basis. The text also states that leave to continue the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 is not confined to the successor alone: the plaintiff or any interested person may seek it, since the provision is enabling and intended to secure effective continuation of the proceeding. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171080