1. The prayer of the present petitioner that the suit should have been dismissed as the plaintiff had transferred the properly by way of gift to Utttum Chand stands declined. Prayer of Utam Chand to be both on record as pailntiff stands allowed. It is these direction given by the trial court which are subject matter of challenge in the (sic) petition. 2. One Utam Chand is claiming to be done of the suit property. The suit was filled by Choola Davi prefered a suit for mandatory injection and declaration that she is the owner of building known as Gourimal Sant Ram Dharam Shala and that the defendend be injuncted from interferring with the ownership rights and mandatory injeuntions was also sought calling upon the defendends to remove the gate and wall reservior raised by him .It is in the suit an application was prefferd by Utam Chand he stated that whatever right title or intrest in the properly vested in Challo Davi stood gifted to him in his capacity as done. He wanted to be substituted on the record as the plaintiff. This application has been allowed the prayer of the defended for the dismissal of the suit has been rejected. It is the decision given by the trail court as noticed above which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties i am the opinion that the trial court has rightly exercised jurisdiction under order 22R 10 CPC. The trial court was competent to grant relief to continue the suit when it was shown that during the pendency of the suit there was assignment creation or devolution of an intrest on Utam Chand who sought to continue with the suit sub rule (l)of rule 10 order 22 CPC for facility of refrence is reproduced below: "(1) In other case of an assignment creation or an assignment, creation or devolution of any intrest during the pendency of the suit, the suit may by leave of the court be continue by or against the person to or upon whom such intrest has come or devolved" 4. Sub rule (1) is an enabling provision. Sub rule (1) is an enabling provision. It is based on the principle that the trial of a suit can not be arrested merely by reason of a devolution of the intrest of a party in the subject matter of the suit that the person acquiring the interest may continue the suit with the leave of the court, but that if he does not choose to do so the suit may be continued with the original party and the person acquiring the intrest will be bound by or can have the benefit of the decree as the case may be. This rule would be applicable where. (a) There is an ,assignment, of creation or devolution of an intrest in the subject matter of the suit. (b) Such assignment creation or devolution of intrest should be or from a party to the suit and not a stranger. (c) The person in whose favour the assignment creation or devolution of intrest takes place mustbe arrayed on the same side in the suit as the person whom from it has passed. (d) The assignment ,creation or devolution of intrest should take place during the pendency of the suit: In the present case the plaintiff has stated in catagorical terms that she has made a gift of property in favour of Utam Chand. Utam Chand filled in application for being brought on the record as the rights in the property stood assigned to him. If this be the position, it can not be said that ths order passed by the trial court permiting Utam Chand to come on record as plaintiff suffers from any illegality. This pettition as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed.