JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:--- This revision application by the original defendant is directed against the order passed by the trial Court permitting non-applicant No. 5 who claimed to be the assignee of the interest of the opponents Nos. 1 to 4-original plaintiffs, to continue the suit under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The opponents Nos. 1 to 4 brought Small Cause Suit No. 684 of 1981 for possession against the applicant the ground that permission to determine the lease of the applicant was obtained but the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 from the Rent Controller and pursuant to that permission a notice to determine the lease was issued. The suit was resisted by the applicant contending that the notice had been waived by the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 and they agree to continue the lease. The opponent No. 5 filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for leave to continue that suit by being added as plaintiff No. 4 . According to him, the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 assigned their Interest at well as the right to continue the suit to him by the sale deed dated 29-1-1982 and in view of the assignment and devolution of interest upon him he was entitled to continue the suit. 3. The application was resisted by the revision-applicant on the ground that the notice had been waived by the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 and so the permission granted by the Rent Controller to determine the lease would not enure for the benefit of the opponent No. 5. The trial Court held on the basis of the certified copy of the sale deed produced by the opponent No. 5 and his affidavit that there was an assignment of the interest of opponents Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of opponent No. 5 and granted him leave to continue the suit. 4. The first contention of Shri G.B. Lohia, learned Counsel for the applicant, was that as there was no enquiry by the trial Court before granting leave to the opponent No. 5 to continue the suit, the order allowing the application was bad. 1 to 4 in favour of opponent No. 5 and granted him leave to continue the suit. 4. The first contention of Shri G.B. Lohia, learned Counsel for the applicant, was that as there was no enquiry by the trial Court before granting leave to the opponent No. 5 to continue the suit, the order allowing the application was bad. Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C. is as follows : "10(1): In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. (2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit or sub-rule (1)." 5. The contention is that before the leave can be granted the Court must ascertain whether the interest has come or devolved on the person claiming to be assignee and that unless there is an enquiry in respect of the right and the right is established after a full hearing, leave cannot be granted. Now the object of granting leave is to enable proceedings to be continued by or against the person acquiring interest in the subject-matter, the words "upon whom such interest has come or devolved" being merely descriptive of the person in respect of whom such leave may be granted. The phraseology of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 does not indicate that before the leave is granted there has to be a finding regarding the validity of the assignment or devolution. 6. Shri Lohia urged that such an enquiry is necessary in respect of the categories mentioned in Rules 1 to 9 of Order 22, Civil Procedure Code before legal representatives are allowed to be brought on record so that the suit can be continued when a party to the suit dies and there is no reason why an exception should be made in the case of persons covered by Rule 10. Now Rule 5 requires that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court. Now Rule 5 requires that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court. The opening words of sub-rule (1) make it clear that the cases covered by Rule 10 are a class apart from the cases covered by Rules 1 to 9 and the option to continue the suit is dependent upon the leave of the Court which the party does not have an absolute right to ask for. Another difference as pointed out in Mulla's Commentary on Civil Procedure Code (Eleventh Edition) at page 720, lies in the consequences of not bringing the assignee of transferee on record. The suit does not become defective by an assignment pendente lite and the assignee is not precluded from recovering the debt due. The trial of a suit cannot be arrested merely by reason of the devolution of the interest of the plaintiff. The successor-in-interest may with the leave of the Court continue the suit. If he does not, the original plaintiff may. The assignor does not by reason of the assignment lose his right to continue the proceedings. This position does not obtain in respect of the categories which are covered by rules to 9 of Order 22, Civil P.C. In view of the difference a full-scale enquiry about the existence and validity of the assignment or devolution would not be necessary at the stage of granting leave. It is not excepted that the existence or otherwise of the rights or attacks or defences, which may be open to other parties on merits should be gone into at the stage of granting leave. These have to be dealt with at a later stage when the suit comes for trial. 7. In (Seethal Achi v. Meyappa)1, A.I.R. 1934 Madras 337, it was observed : "If there is a question common to the parties on record and a stranger, as regards the subject-matter of the suit or any portion thereof, it should be tried once for all by allowing the stranger to be made a party.. ... Moreover Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C, is not confined only to cases of undisputed assignment, creation or devolution of interest. ... Moreover Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C, is not confined only to cases of undisputed assignment, creation or devolution of interest. It is open to the Court to make an inquiry and pass the necessary order." In that case the lower Court had thought it fit to make that enquiry and it was held that the exercise of that discretion cannot be easily interfered with in revision but the proposition that full-scale enquiry into the existence or validity of the assignment be gone is not necessary at the stage of granting leave was never in question. 8. Shri Lohia urged that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in (Goutami Devi Sitamony v. Madhavan Sivarajan)2, A.I.R. 1977 Kerala 83 after considering the scheme of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code observed that an assignee can make an application for leave to continue the suit so long as there is a suit, so far it concerns the assignee on the file of the Court. The suit there had abated by death of a party and it was observed that in a suit which is not subsisting there is no scope for seeking continuance. It was only logical that in a case where the suit has abated the assignee cannot thereafter seek to be added as a party to the action. It is difficult to see how this observation can have relevance to the facts of the present case. Shri Lohia's contention was that if the notice is waived there is nothing which could be assigned. This contention will have to be examined on merits. Clearly it does not have the same effect as abatement on account of the death of a party as then there will be no suit in subsistence. 9. I am fortified in this view by the observations of the Allahabad High Court in (Krishna Behari Goel v. Raj Mangal Persad)3, A.I.R. 1954 All. 182 where the contention was that the assignment in favour of the opposite parties was invalid. That question had been raised before the trial Court but it had not given a finding on it and the Appellate Court had not mentioned the objection. The Court observed:--- "At the moment it was concerned only with the question whether the opposite parties should be given permission to continue the suit or not. That question had been raised before the trial Court but it had not given a finding on it and the Appellate Court had not mentioned the objection. The Court observed:--- "At the moment it was concerned only with the question whether the opposite parties should be given permission to continue the suit or not. They claimed to be assignees and as assignees they could be granted permission. Whether they could get the relief or not was a different question to be answered after the suit was tried. At the time the question would arise whether the assignment in their favour was valid or not. If the assignment was found to be invalid they would not be granted the relief even if they were added as plaintiffs." 10. In (Ebrahim Mulla v. Chhattrasinhji)4, A.I.R. 1954 Saurashtra 20 it was held that the mere fact that the assignment is denied by the opposite party is not a sufficient ground alone to enable the Court to refuse leave and where 'prima facie' the right of the applicant to be brought on record is established, the question as to the validity of the transfer should be decided in the suit itself rather than in an application under Order 22, Rule 10 (Devkinandan Lal v. Jogendra Prasad)5, A.I.R 1980 Patna 71 on which the applicant relied is of no assistance because there the assignee was held not entitled to continue the suit, which had abated. 11. In (C. Wright Neville v. E.H. Freser)6, A.I.R. 1944 Nagpur 137 it was pointed out that an assignee pendente lite is not bound to file an application during the pendency of the suit 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 is necessary for him to apply for leave to continue the suit by or against him. It was held that the mere fact that the assignment was disputed was no ground for refusing leave and the Court could enquire into the factum and validity of the assignment. 12. Having regard to the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C. and the authorities to which I have referred, it is apparent that no detailed enquiry at the stage of granting leave is contemplated under Order 22, Rule 10. 12. Having regard to the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C. and the authorities to which I have referred, it is apparent that no detailed enquiry at the stage of granting leave is contemplated under Order 22, Rule 10. The Court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit by or against the person on whom the interest has developed by assignment or devolution and the question about the existence and validity of the assignment or devolution can be considered at the trial of the suit on merits. This being the legal position the order passed by the learned trial Judge was correct and no interference with the discretion by him is called for. 13. In the result, rule is discharged with costs. -----