JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 CPC by applicant Subhash Thakur for impleading the applicant as co-defendant 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 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 right of plaintiff in suit property. Alternative additional relief also sought by plaintiff to the effect that sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of co-defendants No. 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 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 re-transfer 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. 217 of 2015 that during the pendency of civil suit applicant entered into an agreement to sale dated 4.7.2015 with co-defendant No.9 Shri Khub Ram and co-defendant No.9 Khub Ram agreed to sell land in consideration amount of Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) and took whole consideration amount of Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only). It is pleaded that in view of agreement dated 4.7.2015 relating to suit property involved in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 applicant is assignee during pendency of civil suit No. 4 of 2007 and interest in suit property has devolved during pendency of civil suit and applicant be impleaded as co-defendant in civil suit No.4 of 2007. 5. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-applicant/plaintiff pleaded therein that application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and ad-interim injunction was sought and ad-interim injunction was passed by Court in civil suit No. 4 of 2007 but despite interim injunction applicant has entered into an agreement with co-defendant No.9 Sh. Khub Ram and further pleaded that agreement executed by applicant is governed under the concept of lispendence as mentioned under section 52 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. It is pleaded that agreement is illegal null and void and applicant is not proper and interested party and further pleaded that non-applicant/plaintiff is dominus litis in civil suit No.4 of 2007. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 6. 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. 7. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 6. 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. 7. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead applicant as co-defendant 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 XXII 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 8. It is primafacie proved on record that vide agreement placed on record applicant executed sale agreement on 4.7.2015 with Khub Ram i.e. co-defendant No.9 for sale of suit property in consideration amount of Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) during pendency of civil suit No. 4 of 2007 and whole amount stood paid to co-defendant No.9. 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. 9. 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. 10. In present case amount to the tune of Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) is involved and there are allegations against co-defendant No.9 that co-defendant No.9 Sh. Khub Ram had received Rupees fifty lacs during pendency of civil suit No. 4 of 2007 relating to suit property from applicant. 11. 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 transferee as co-defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 11. 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 transferee 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. See AIR 2005 Kerala 133 titled Bhaskaran vs. Vijayaraghan and others. 12. 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 of 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. 13. It is held that relief sought by plaintiff will directly effect the applicant because applicant has already paid Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) to co-defendant No.9 during the pendency of suit relating to suit land and it is held that applicant is proper party in present suit because interest of applicant 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 that wrong section is mentioned in application. It is well settled law that Court 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. 14. 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? 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 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 co-defendants 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 applicant has already paid Rs.5000000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) to codefendant No.9 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 applicant in suit property during pendency of suit under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC. 15. It is well settled law that interpleader suit is one in which real dispute is between co-defendant only and co-defendant pleads against each other instead of pleading against plaintiff. 16. 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. 17. It is held that rights of applicant 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 dated 04.07.2015 executed between applicant and co-defendant No.9 during pendency of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 relating to suit property. Plaintiff Raja Ashok Pal Sen and co-defendant Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra are close relatives. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Relief) 18. Document of devolution of interest placed on record dated 04.07.2015 executed between applicant and co-defendant No.9 during pendency of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 relating to suit property. Plaintiff Raja Ashok Pal Sen and co-defendant Smt. Raj Kumari Indira Mahindra are close relatives. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Relief) 18. 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 CPC and applicant namely Subhash Thakur son of late Shri Nagnu Ram is impleaded as co-defendant No. 15 in civil suit No. 4 of 2007. Observations will not effect merits of C.S. No. 4 of 2007 and will be confined only for disposal of OMP No. 217 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. Applicant is impleaded as co-defendant No.15 in C.S. No. 4 of 2007. OMP No. 217 of 2015 is disposed of.