JUDGMENT (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a writ petition in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the District Judge, Allahabad dated 29-9-1995 (Annexure-1) and the order passed by the III Additional Munsif, Allahabad dated 23-3-1995 (Annexure-II) to the writ petition. (2.) THE brief facts from which this writ petition has arisen are as follows and which are relevant for the purpose to decide the writ petition. Suit No. 628 of 1981 was filed by plaintiff Mohd. Siddique against Abdul Shakoor with the allegations that they entered into a partnership business on 7th September, 1959. Thereafter, it was agreed that the business be closed. THE partnership was dissolved by giving one month's notice dated 19th May, 1981. Plaintiff filed a suit that he is entitled to get profit for three years @ Rs. 25 per month till the date of the suit and pendent elite and future till the date of actual possession over the accommodation in dispute. THE plaintiff also claimed the relief for recovery of Rs. 900/- as profit of dissolved partnership firm and also vacant possession of the shop in dispute. He claimed the damages pendent elite and future till the date of delivery of actual possession over the shop in dispute @ Rs. 25 per month. A written statement has been filed. It was averred that the property was owned by Rasul Bux and now all his legal representatives, who are necessary parties to the suit. Now the controversy for the purpose of deciding this writ petition is that Smt. Chameli Devi happened to purchase the Square of Mohd. Siddique on the basis of sale deed dated 18-11-1982. She filed an application for amendment on 6-4-1983 to be impleaded as co-plaintiff. The amendment was allowed. Later on Mohd. Siddique died on 10-11-1992 leaving behind Smt. Bismilla and others, his widow, daughters and sons, as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. No substitution application was filed within three months under Order 22 Rule 3, C. P. C. and according to the petitioner, the suit has abated under Order XXII, Rule 3, C. P. C. as the natural heirs were not brought on record within three months. (3.) THE submission on behalf of Smt. Chameli Devi is that she is transferee of the property in dispute and she is entitled to continue over it and there is no question of legal representative. (3.) THE submission on behalf of Smt. Chameli Devi is that she is transferee of the property in dispute and she is entitled to continue over it and there is no question of legal representative. (4.) THE lower Court allowed the plea of Smt. Chameli Devi and the appellate Court also upheld the finding of the lower appellate Court on the ground that the legal heirs of Mohd. Siddique was not brought on record. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts below, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. (5.) IT was submitted by Sri Shankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the Courts below are un reasonable and illegal. He stressed upon the provision of Order XXII, Rule 10-A as well as Order XXII Rule 3, C. P. C. According to him, the right to sue does not survive. Order XXIII, Rule 3 along with Order XXII. Rule 10, C. P. C. is quoted below:- "Order XXII, Rule 3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff:- (1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff. " "22. Rule 10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.- (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. " IT was further submitted that even Rule 10 does not apply. " IT was further submitted that even Rule 10 does not apply. He laid emphasis that it does not fall under cases as mentioned in Rule 10. I am afraid to agree with the submission. The legislature has laid emphasis on the assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of the suit. Since it is a matter of commonsense and no other interpretation can be given that the right to sue survive to Stnt. Chameli Devi who had purchased the right of the plaintiff and by virtue of sale, she has stepped into his shoes. She squarely fails within the definition of legal representative. Section 2 (11), C. P. C. lays down that "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. " The learned counsel has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Sobha Ram and others v. Bahadur Singh and others, AIR 1973 Himachal Pradesh 44. This ruling is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. IT was not a case of sale at all. (6.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the orders are not amendable in writ jurisdiction as there is no jurisdictional error or abuse of the process of law. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.