1. ' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.--- We propose to dispose of the above four High Court Appeals by this common judgment as the question involved therein is identical, since a single order has been passed on all the miscellaneous applications separately filed by different parties after separately discussing each application therefore, separate High Court Appeals have been filed.
2. ' In H.C.A. No,95 of 2007 the appellant has impugned the order dated 31-1-2007, passed on C.M.A.
3. No,6819 of 2006 filed by respondent No,23 under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., which was allowed and the applicant was permitted to be substituted as defendant No,23 in place of the existing defendant No,23 with the observation that "subject to all rights available under the proceedings already taken place shall be binding on the newly joined defendant." Learned counsel submits that the name of the defendant No,23 was substituted by appellants as new defendant No,23. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the same time the learned single Judge, notwithstanding the above observation, has also directed the substituted defendant No,23 i.e. Respondent No,23 herein, to file written statement within 10 days, which, according to the learned counsel, keeping in view the provisions of Order XXII, Rules 10 and I1, C.P.C. As well as the observation of the learned single Judge in the impugned Order, is contrary to the earlier part of the order and is redundant. He, therefore, prays that the last two line of the order dated 31-1-2007, passed on C.M.A.
4. No,6820 of 2006, directing defendant No,23 to file written statement within 10 days, may be deleted.
5. The learned counsel has pointed out order dated 23-5-2006 passed in the same suit (page 123 of the H.C.A.) on the application of the intervenor whereby the applicant has been allowed to participate from the date of joining while all the proceedings on his predecessor were held binding on the applicant/ intervenor.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Adnan Usma n, learned counsel for respondent No,23 in H.C.A. No,95, states that substituted defendant No,23, respondent No,23 herein, has purchased the property from previous defendant No,23 and he has all the rights to defend the suit by placing his documents as well as his version on record and, in the interest of justice, he is to be allowed to participate in the proceedings from the stage of filing of written statement. He also submits that all the necessary/proper parties have not been joined by the appellant/plaintiff in the suit while it was duty of the plaintiff to do so.
7. ' In the other appeals also intervenors who are respondents Nos.7, 30, 36, 51 and 56, have filed applications for becoming parties to the suit and were substituted in place of defendants from whom they have acquired the properties.
8. ' In all the other High Court Appeals mentioned above, the position is almost the same as stated above except in H.C.As. Nos.95 of 2007 and 97 of 2007 wherein separate orders were passed.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties present, we called the file of Suit No,977 of 1990 from the Record and have noticed that original defendant No,23 had already filed his written statement, therefore, the observation of the learned single Judge in the order dated 31-1-2007 to the effect that defendant No,23 has been declared ex parte A is incorrect. Furthermore, the newly added defendants were only substituted in place of previous defendants and have not joined the proceedings under Order. I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. And are entitled to continue the proceedings at the stage they have joined the proceedings. In such situation the question of filing of written statement by the substituted defendant No,23 does not arise as he has been substituted subject to the condition that the proceedings already undertaken shall be binding on him. Therefore, the direction for filing written statement, contained in para 1 of the impugned order at page 2 (page 51 of the file), is contrary to the condition imposed by the learned single Judge to the effect that the proceedings already undertaken shall be binding on the newly joined defendant.
10. ' The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following reported cases:---
(1) Mst. Surraya Begum v. Mst. Suban Begum 1992 SCM R 652, and
(2) Policherala Veeraraghava Reddi v. Cherla Subba Reddi and others AIR 1920 Madras 391.
11. ' In the case of Policherala Veeraraghava Reddi (supra), it was held as under:- "There can be little doubt that a transferee pendente lite is entitled to come on record and to conduct all proceedings from the date he is added as a party, though he would be bound by all orders passed up to that date and could not raise a defence not open to his transferor."
12. ' In such situation, we order that the direction to the newly added defendant to file written statement is deleted, and the rest of the impugned order is maintained.
13. ' The upshot of the above order is that in all the above High Court Appeals the direction for filing of written statement by the newly added defendants is deleted. However, they are allowed to participate in the proceedings before the learned single Judge from the stage at which they joined the proceedings. With these observations these appeals are disposed of.
14. ' C.M.As. Nos.266 of 2008 and 268 of 2008 are applications under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., whereby the applicants have prayed to be impleaded as necessary party. These C.M.As. Also stand disposed of with the observation that the applicants are at liberty to seek redressal of their grievances before the learned single Judge, if so, advised.