JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 CPC by applicant namely Shri Vishal Chaddha for impleading (1) Dinesh Kumar son of Yadvender Kumar (2) Shri Vishal Chaddha son of Shri Banwari Lal Chaddha (3) Madho Prasad son of Shri Govind Ram as co-defendants in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 titled Raja Ashok Pal Sen vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra and others. Brief facts of the case 2. Raja Ashok Pal Sen filed civil suit No. 4 of 2007 titled Raja Ashok Pal Sen vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra and others pleaded therein that decree of declaration be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of suit property on the basis of settlement deed dated 10.11.2000 placed on record and on the basis of acknowledgement made by co-defendant No.1 in her affidavit dated 11.5.2000. It is pleaded that defendants have no right title or interest in suit property and right title or interest of defendants in suit property ceased after execution of settlement deed and affidavit. Additional relief of declaration also sought to the effect that sale deed dated 24.4.2008 registered in the office of Registrar at Sr. No. 251 in favour of co- defendants Nos. 9 to 11 with respect to suit property is illegal null and void and did not effect right title or interest of plaintiff in the suit property. It is pleaded that plaintiff continuous to be absolute owner in possession of suit property on the basis of settlement deed dated 11.5.2000 followed by affidavit dated 11.5.2000. It is pleaded that defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner in possession of suit property. It is pleaded that co-defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have illegally wrongly and without jurisdiction manipulated cancellation of mutation No. 146 dated 18.8.2000 and it is pleaded that order of cancellation of mutation dt. 31.8.2005 is also illegal without jurisdiction and did not effect the rights of plaintiff in suit property. Alternative additional relief also sought by plaintiff to the effect that sale deed executed by co- defendant No. 1 in favour of co-defendants Nos. 4 to 11 with respect to suit property is also illegal null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff and prayer also sought that defendants Nos. Alternative additional relief also sought by plaintiff to the effect that sale deed executed by co- defendant No. 1 in favour of co-defendants Nos. 4 to 11 with respect to suit property is also illegal null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff and prayer also sought that defendants Nos. 4 to 11 be directed to re-transfer the suit property in favour of plaintiff. It is pleaded that on the failure of co-defendants Nos. 4 to 11 to retransfer the property in favour of plaintiff decree of injunction be also passed in favour of plaintiff along with costs of suit. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendants and issues framed in Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007 on 29.3.2011 and additional issues also framed on 20.3.2012. Thereafter as per request of learned Advocates civil suit No. 4 of 2007 referred to mediator for settlement of dispute inter se the parties. In the meanwhile present application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed. 4. There is recital in OMP No. 24 of 2015 that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad are interested and proper party in suit and they be impleaded as codefendants in civil suit No. 4 of 2007. It is pleaded that proposed co-defendants have entered into an agreement dated 17.5.2014 relating to suit property and proposed codefendants have already paid amount to the tune of Rupees three crores twenty five lacs to co-defendant No.1 namely Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra relating to suit property and further pleaded that balance amount to the tune of Rs. 75 lacs (seventy five lacs) will be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It is pleaded that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad are assignees during pendency of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 and interest in suit property has devolved upon them and they be impleaded as co-defendants No. 12 to 14 respectively in CS No. 4 of 2007. Prayer for acceptance of application sought. 5. Per contra response filed on behalf of co-defendant No.1 Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra pleaded therein that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad are not proper and interested parties in civil suit. It is pleaded that application filed with malafide intention just to delay proceedings of civil suit. 6. Prayer for acceptance of application sought. 5. Per contra response filed on behalf of co-defendant No.1 Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra pleaded therein that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad are not proper and interested parties in civil suit. It is pleaded that application filed with malafide intention just to delay proceedings of civil suit. 6. Per contra separate response filed on behalf of plaintiff pleaded therein that proposed co-defendants have entered into an agreement during the pendency of CS No. 4 of 2007 and further pleaded that separate proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC have been filed against co-defendant No.1. It is pleaded that co-defendant No.1 could not enter into an agreement of sale in view of injunction order passed by Court which is still operative. It is pleaded that co-defendant No.1 has also filed CS No. 38 of 2009 which is pending against co-defendant No.3 and co-defendant No.9 for setting aside and cancellation of sale deed No. 25 dated 24.4.2008 qua suit property. It is pleaded that co-defendant No.1 herself challenged sale deed No. 25 dated 24.4.2008 and thereafter she could not enter into subsequent agreement of sale. It is pleaded that subsequent agreement of sale is illegal null and void and is also against injunction order passed by High Court of H.P. It is also pleaded that agreement did not create any interest in suit property and prayer for dismissal of application sought. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the non-applicants and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in OMP No. 24 of 2015:- 1. Whether application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad as co-defendants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application and whether application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC should be converted into application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in the ends of justice while exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908? 2. Relief. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons: 9. 2. Relief. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons: 9. It is primafacie proved on record that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad have executed sale agreement on 17.5.2014 with Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra i.e. co-defendant No.1 for sale of suit property in consideration amount of Rs.4 crore (Rupees four crore only) and out of sale consideration amount Rs.32500000/- (Rupees three crore twenty five lacs only) stood paid to co-defendant No.1. It is also primafacie proved on record that sale agreement dated 17.5.2014 was executed between Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad and co-defendant No.1 during the pendency of civil suit No. 4 of 2007. It is well settled law that any right to immovable property relating to civil suit which is pending before competent Court of law is governed by concept of doctrine of lis pendence as mentioned in Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. See AIR 2013 SC 2389 titled Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P.Ltd and others. See (2012)7 SCC 738 titled A. Nawab John and others vs. V.N.Subramaniyam. 10. As per Order XXII Rule 10 CPC if any assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of suit is created then with leave of Court any interested person to whom such interest is devolved could be impleaded as co-defendant. 11. In present case amount to the tune of Rs.32500000/- (Rupees three crores twenty five lacs only) is involved relating to suit property and there are allegations against co-defendant that co-defendant Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra had received Rs.32500000/- (Rupees three crores twenty five lacs only) relating to suit property during the pendency of suit from Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad. 12. It was held in case reported in AIR 1992 Orissa 47 titled Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu vs. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee and others (Full Bench) that plaintiff is not bound to implead lispendence assignee as co-defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is held that lispendence assignee is virtually interested in litigation and it was further held that lispendence assignee could be impleaded as an assignee under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 (1) CPC even if application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It was held that Court should treat application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 (1) CPC. It was held that Court should treat application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 (1) CPC. See AIR 2005 Kerala 133 titled Bhaskaran vs. Vijayaraghan and others. 13. It is well settled law that assignee during the pendency of suit will not be allowed to set up a case inconsistent with one set by assigner. It is well settled law that all orders passed in suit are binding upon the assignee and assignee could not reopen the case as assignee deprived the right from assigner during the pendency of suit under Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 14. It is held that relief sought by plaintiff will directly effect Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad because proposed co-defendants have already paid Rs.32500000/- (Rupees three crores twenty five lacs only) to co-defendant No.1 during the pendency of suit relating to suit land and it is held that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad are proper parties in present suit because interest of Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad would directly effect the decision of Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007. It is well settled law that relief should not be denied to a party simply on the ground of wrong mentioning of section in application. It is well settled law that Courts are under legal obligation to peruse the entire contents of application and Courts are under legal obligation to grant relief to parties in accordance with law. 15. It is well settled law that under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC any assignment, creation or devolution of interest should take place during the pendency of suit. It is well settled law that application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by an assignee pendente lite can be converted under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC in the ends of justice. It is also well settled law that Order XXII Rule 10 CPC covers the word “interest” of assignee during pendency of suit and interest must be in subject matter of suit. It is well settled law that assignee of interest in suit property during pendency of civil suit is entitled to be impleaded as codefendants under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. It is well settled law that assignee of interest in suit property during pendency of civil suit is entitled to be impleaded as codefendants under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. In view of above stated facts application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is converted into application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC in the ends of justice keeping in view the fact that Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad have already paid Rs.32500000/- (Rupees three crore twenty five lacs only) to co-defendant No.1 relating to suit property involved in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 titled Raja Ashok Pal Sen vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra and it is held that interest was devolved upon Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad in suit property during pendency of suit under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC. 16. It is well settled law that interpleader suit is one in which real dispute is between co-defendants only and co-defendants plead against each other instead of pleading against plaintiff. 17. Proviso to Section 88 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bars institution of fresh suit of interpleader where any former civil suit is pending in which rights of all parties can properly be decided. 18. It is held that rights of Dinesh Kumar, Vishal Chaddha and Madho Prasad can be properly decided in C.S. No. 4 of 2007. It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow application in order to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings inter se parties qua same property. Document of devolution of interest placed on record executed between proposed co-defendants and co-defendant No.1 on dated 17.5.2014 during pendency of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 relating to suit property. Plaintiff Raja Ashok Pal Sen and codefendant Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra are related to each other. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Relief) 19. Document of devolution of interest placed on record executed between proposed co-defendants and co-defendant No.1 on dated 17.5.2014 during pendency of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 relating to suit property. Plaintiff Raja Ashok Pal Sen and codefendant Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra are related to each other. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Relief) 19. In view of above stated facts application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is converted into application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC in the ends of justice while exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and (1) Dinesh Kumar son of Yadvender Kumar (2) Vishal Chaddha son of Shri Banwari Lal Chaddha (3) Madho Prasad son of Gobind Ram are impleaded as co-defendants No. 12, 13 and 14 in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. Observations will not effect merits of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 and will be confined only for disposal of OMP No. 24 of 2015. It is held that order under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for conversion of application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is necessary for the ends of justice. OMP No. 24 of 2015 is disposed of.