ORDER Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. The applicant, claiming himself to be assignee of the appellant, has filed this application for restoration of F.A. No. 168/1994. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 2.1 Messrs Bulchand Kewalram, the original plaintiff and appellant in F.A. No. 168/1994, had filed Civil Suit No. 16-A/89 for permanent injunction and damages relating to infringement of it's trade mark "Double Deer Mustard Oil". The said suit was dismissed from the Court of IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur by judgment and decree dated 16.2.1994. 2.2 Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff F.A. No. 168/1994 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. After reorganization in the year 2000, the matter was transferred to this Court. It was listed before this Court on 12.7.2005. Since no one caused appearance on the said date, this Court directed for issuance of notice to the appellant. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a notice from the Court side was issued to the appellant by fixing a date of 24.7.2006. The notice was served upon one of the partner of the Firm. Since no one appeared on behalf of the appellant when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Bench, nor any Vakalatnama etc was filed on behalf of the appellant, this Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 2.3 After dismissal of the appeal on 25.7.2006, the applicant has filed this application for restoration on 25.6.2012 which is barred by 2081 days. Therefore, an application (I.A. No. 01) has been filed for condonation of delay in filing restoration application. 3. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has argued that on 17.3.2010, the appellant/plaintiff had executed an agreement in favour of the applicant regarding transfer of their goodwill and trade mark for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and on certain other conditions contained in the agreement (Annexure- A/1). Therefore, the applicant became proposed purchaser of the trade mark and goodwill of the appellant, and thus, he became appellant's assignee in terms of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Since the applicant wants to prosecute the appeal, the appeal may be restored by allowing the restoration application (M.C.C. No. 567/2012). Since the applicant wants to prosecute the appeal, the appeal may be restored by allowing the restoration application (M.C.C. No. 567/2012). He relied on Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code and cited the decision of Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 787 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Adhiraj Surana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has opposed the restoration. He has argued that the alleged assignment was of 17.3.2010, i.e. much after dismissal of the First Appeal, therefore, neither substitution nor restoration was possible in terms of Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code and the application deserves to be dismissed. He relied on the decision of Narain Chandra Khan Vs. Jagannath Acharya Goswami and others, AIR 1938 Patna 574. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties. 6. In Bhanu Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787 (supra), the Supreme Court, while dealing with other aspects, has held vide Para-14 that an assignee of interest of the plaintiff during the pendency of the proceedings would have a locus standi to continue the proceedings in view of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code. 7. Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code is titled as "Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit". Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 provides that in other cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of the 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. 8. Mr. Surana has not disputed this legal position. However, he has argued that since right of the applicant itself accrued after a long time after the dismissal of the suit and appeal, therefore, he would have no locus standi to file an application for restoration. 9. A bare perusal of Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code would make it clear that to continue a suit or a proceeding the creation or devolution of interest must accrue during the pendency of the suit or the proceeding and not after its disposal. 10. In Narain Chandra, AIR 1938 Patna 574 (supra), the applicant was a transferee of certain interest in a tank which was the subject matter of the litigation between his vender and the other party. 10. In Narain Chandra, AIR 1938 Patna 574 (supra), the applicant was a transferee of certain interest in a tank which was the subject matter of the litigation between his vender and the other party. He had purchased the rights in respect of that tank after the disposal of the suit in favour of the other party, and for some reason the appeal preferred by the vender was dismissed for default of the vender. The transferee had filed an application for restoration of the appeal. The restoration was denied. The reasons assigned were in light of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 19 which contemplated that the applicant who wants his appeal to be restored has to prove, first, that the appeal was his, and, secondly, that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing. It was held that how the transferee can be heard to say that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of another person who was in full seisin of his own litigation in his own right. 11. In the instant case, even if we accept the contention of Mr. Sharma, the right of the applicant as an assignee of the appellant/plaintiff itself had accrued on 17.3.2010 i.e. much after the dismissal of the First Appeal which . admittedly took place on 25.7.2006 and thus right claimed by the applicant did not accrue in his favour during the pendency of the suit or the appeal which is mandatory to attract the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code which confers a discretion on the Court hearing the suit to grant leave to the person in or upon whom such right or interest has vested/accrued in the above manner. We are of the view that in light of the above provisions of Order 22 Rule 10, on which reliance was placed by Mr. Sharma, the application filed by the applicant for restoration cannot be entertained. 12. The application for restoration (M.C.C. No. 567/2012), therefore, is dismissed notwithstanding the fact that the same is also barred by limitation. 13. No cost. HEADLINE Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. when attracted - Discussed. Application Dismissed.