Judgment :- 1. The first petition is for impleading the petitioner, an assignee from the deceased sole appellant, as an additional appellant in the appeal; and the other petition is for setting aside the abatement of the appeal. 2. The appellant assigned her rights to the petitioner, when the suit against the former was pending in the lower court. The suit went against the appellant; and she filed the appeal before this Court. Thereafter, she died on 13th March 1964, and the petition for bringing on record the assignee as an additional appellant was filed ninety days thereafter, i. e., after the appeal abated. The petition for setting aside the abatement was also filed. 3. The respondent's counsel brings to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Sm. Saila Bala Dassi v. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi (A.I.R.1958 S.C. 394). Therein the Supreme Court has approved the legal position that an application made by an assignee, who takes the assignment during the pendency of the suit, to bring him on record at the appellate stage cannot be allowed under 0.22 R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court appears to have also approved that the expression 'during the pendency of a suit' means only before the suit was disposed of and not during the appellate stage. Therefore, the present petition by the assignee, who obtained the assignment during the pendency of the suit before the lower court, to bring her on record in the appeal cannot be allowed under 0.22, R.10 of the Code. 4. The advocate of the petitioner then points out that in the decision cited the Supreme Court has allowed the assignee to come on record under S.146 of the Code. That is so. Still, I do not think that the reasoning of the Supreme Court supports the petitioner in the case before me. The Supreme Court has said that if the assignor did not file the appeal, the assignee could file the appeal. The Supreme Court has also said that if the assignor filed the appeal, the assignee could continue the same. The reasoning of the Supreme Court will appear clear from the wording of S.146. The Supreme Court has said that if the assignor did not file the appeal, the assignee could file the appeal. The Supreme Court has also said that if the assignor filed the appeal, the assignee could continue the same. The reasoning of the Supreme Court will appear clear from the wording of S.146. That section reads, omitting the words not material for the present case, that save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by any person claiming under him. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assignment was before the decree; and the assignor herself filed an appeal. The assignee thereafter sought to get herself impleaded in the appeal; and this was ultimately allowed by the Supreme Court. In the case before me, the appeal was filed by the assignor; and if the appeal were still effective at the time of the application by the assignee, the application has to be allowed also. But in this case, the appeal has abated: so that, there is nothing further which the assignor herself could have done in the appeal. What can possibly be done is to get the abatement set aside; and that is a right, not of the assignor, but of the person on whom the assignor's rights have devolved. Such a right has to be exercised under 0.22 of the Code and not under S.146. Therefore, since the appeal has abated in this case, the petitioner cannot get herself brought on record as an additional appellant and continue the appeal under S.146 of the Code. Both the petitions are dismissed. Dismissed.