JUDGMENT : The respondent, an assignee 'pendente lite', has been allowed to be impleaded as an appellant in an appeal pending in the Court of the District Judge, Gwalior. Against this order, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The facts are as follows: On 26-4-1932, Ameer Mohammad, plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration as well as for recovery of possession of some immovable property against Lt.-Colonel Sardar Clement Filose in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sheopur, which was dismissed on 28-6-35 as time barred. The plaintiff filed an appeal on 3-6-36 in the Court of the District Judge. The appeal was in 1942 accepted and the suit was held to be within limitation and was remanded to the trial Court. On 12-2-45, the trial Court decreed the suit. Miss I.M. Filose, (daughter of Sardar Clement Filose, who had died) then, on 12-4-1945, filed an appeal in the District Judge's Court against the decree of the trial Court. Miss I.M. Filose was in England and the appeal on her behalf was continued by her 'Mukhtear Am'. During the pendency of this appeal, on 28-2-1946, an application was filed by one Jeewanlal, the present respondent, alleging that on 30-8-1937 some suit property had been purchased by him from I. M. Filose for a sum of Rs. 2,100/- and he requested the Court to allow him to be impleaded as an appellant. The plaintiff-respondent opposed this application but his objections having been overruled, Jeewanlal was ordered to be impleaded on 15-8-1946 as an appellant in addition to I.M. Filose. 2. Amir Mohammad, plaintiff, has now preferred this appeal against the order dated 15-8-1946 of the appellate Court and Mr. Abdul Hafiz places reliance on 'PHUL CHAND v. KHWAJA TAKER HUSSAIN', AIR 1934 All 442 in support of the proposition that where the assignment in favour of the applicant has been made during the pendency of the suit in the Court below and not during the pendency of the appeal the appellate Court has no jurisdiction under R. 10, O. 22 to implead the applicant as a party to the appeal. The Allahabad case was followed by the Oudh Chief Court in 'In re: UMANATH BUX SINGH', AIR 1936 Oudh 224, and the Madras, Patna and Lahore High Courts seem to hold the same views. The Allahabad case was followed by the Oudh Chief Court in 'In re: UMANATH BUX SINGH', AIR 1936 Oudh 224, and the Madras, Patna and Lahore High Courts seem to hold the same views. These decisions have been discussed and dissented from by the Nagpur High Court in 'C. WRIGHT NEVILLE v. E. H. FRESER', AIR 1944 Nag 137, and by the Lahore High Court in 'LAKSHMI NARAIN v. BABU', AIR 1946 Lah 33. I respectfully agree with these later decisions in holding that the words "appellant", "respondent" and 'suit' in R. 11 are not to be substituted for the words "plaintiff", "defendant" and 'appeal' respectively as the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court seemed to have thought in ' AIR 1934 All 442 .' But the word "Plaintiff" used in O. 22, R. 11, has to be so read as to include an 'appellant'. Similarly the word 'defendant' has to include a 'respondent' and the word 'suit' has to include an 'appeal'. What R. 11 read with R. 10 means is that' in making R. 10 applicable to appeals the word 'suit' in R. 10 should be read as including an "appeal" and not that the word 'suit' should be replaced by the word 'appeal'. In other words, 'suit' should be read as 'suit or appeal'. In this view of the matter, the appellate Court has jurisdiction to implead an assignee as a party to the appeal even when the assignment was made in his favour during the pendency of the suit. 3. I may here also note that S. 359 of the Gwalior Civil Procedure Code is a translation of S. 372 of the old Code of 1877 which with slight modification is O. 22, R. 10 of the Code of 1908. The words "either in addition to or in substitution for the person from whom it has passed, as the case may be" found in S. 372 are omitted in R. 10, O. 22 but are preserved in S. 359 of the Gwalior Code. 4. I also agree with the view that the provisions in Rr. 10 and 11 do not make it incumbent upon an assignee to make an application during the pendency of the suit or appeal. An assignee 'pendente lite' is not bound to file an application if his interest is protected. 4. I also agree with the view that the provisions in Rr. 10 and 11 do not make it incumbent upon an assignee to make an application during the pendency of the suit or appeal. An assignee 'pendente lite' is not bound to file an application if his interest is protected. It is only when he finds that his interest is in jeopardy and not likely to be protected by the assignor that it becomes necessary for him to apply for leave to continue the suit or the appeal. 5. In the present case the 'factum' and the validity of the assignment had not been questioned by the plaintiff and neither abnormal laches nor 'mala fides' were apparent on the face of the record. The Court below under the circumstances was fully clothed with jurisdiction to grant leave asked for by the respondent Jeewanlal and I do not think any interference is called for in the decision given. 6. I dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.