WP(C) 3996/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J.I. Borbhuyan, learned coun sel for the respondent No. 1. None has appeared on behalf of the proforma respon dent No. 2. 2. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.03.03 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Di strict Judge No. 2, Guwahati in Misc. Appeal No. 7/2002 arising out of the orde r dated 30.01.02 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Guwahat i in Title Suit No. 116/2000. 3. By the aforesaid order dated 30.01.02, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divi sion) No. 2 Guwahati rejected the prayer of the respondent No. 1 made under Orde r XXII, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The respondent No. 1 filed an application in the aforesaid Title Suit under Order XXII, Rule 10 read with Sect ion 151 praying for substitution of the sole plaintiff in the suit. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the present petitioners. The plaintiff is t he daughter-in-law of the respondent No. 1 and her husband has expired. Accordi ng to the respondent No. 1, the plaintiff left Guwahati and went to Punjab where she remarried 4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent No. 1, i.e. the mot her-in-law of the sole plaintiff filed the aforesaid application seeking substit ution in place of the original plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff would never return to Guwahati. 5. The aforesaid prayer of the respondent No. 1 was objected by the defenda nts/ petitioners and upon hearing the parties, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division ) No. 2, Guwahati by her order dated 30.01.02 rejected the same having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case. It was found that on an earli er occasion the respondent No. 1 wanted to represent the plaintiff on the basis of the power of attorney purportedly executed by the sole plaintiff in her favou r. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved, the said prayer of the respondent No. 1 was rejected. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.01.02 passed by the lear ned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Guwahati, the respondent No. 1 preferred t he aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 7/02 and the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge N o. 2, Guwahati by his order dated 31.03.03 allowed the respondent No. 1 to be th e co-plaintiff alongwith the original plaintiff. The order was passed as per the provision of Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. Thus, the learned Ad hoc Addl. Di strict Judge while rejecting the prayer for substitution of the plaintiff by the respondent No. 1 allowed her to be co-plaintiff alongwith the original plaintif f, which, however, was not the prayer of the respondent No. 1. 7. While Mr. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners upon reference to Order I, Rule 10 (3) submits that the learned Appellate Court committed error of jurisdiction in allowing the respondent No. 1 to be the co-plaintiff as there w as no consent on the part of the original plaintiff. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Appellate Court rightly passe d the order exercising the power under Order XXII, Rule 10 readwith Section 151 of the CPC. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on record including the LCR. Order XXII, Rule 10 reads as follows: 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 per son to or upon whom such interest has come or developed. (2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to b an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1) 9. On the other hand, Section 151 CPC is the provision relating to inherent power of the Court. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of Order XXII, Rule 10, it is seen that the said provision is not applicable to the instant ca se. As regards the provision of Section 151, same cannot be made use of in view of express provision under Order I, Rule 10 (3) CPC. When there is specific pro vision dealing with a particular situation, the Court is not empowered to invoke the provision of Section 151 of the CPC. In the name of end of justice the sp ecific provision in the CPC cannot be ignored. Order I, Rule 10 (3) specifically provides that no person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next frie nd or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent . 10. Admittedly the original plaintiff did not give her consent towards addin g the respondent No. 1 as the co-plaintiff. 11. Learned Appellate Court while referring to the provision of Order I, Rul e 10 (2) in passing the impugned order, did not refer to the provision relating to the consent under Order I, Rule 10 (3). 12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 31.03.03 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge No. 2, Guwahati in Misc. Appeal No. 7/2002, is not sus tainable in law and it is therefore set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Guwahati dated 30.01.02 in Title Suit No. 116/2000 (Anenxure-10) shall stand restored. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondent No. 1 to proceed with the matter in acco rdance with law including invocation of the provision of Order I, Rule 10 (3) of the CPC, if occasion arises. At the same time, the petitioners will who be enti tled to raise any such objection or objections as may be available to them both in facts as well as in law. In the event of any such occasion and objection, the learned court below shall decide the issue in accordance with law. No opinion i s expressed in this regard. 13. With the above observation, writ petition is allowed.