Summary
In a long-pending commercial suit for specific performance, an alleged assignee sought addition as a plaintiff after 27 years without explaining the delay. The Court held that leave to continue under Order XXII Rule 10 required judicial discretion and could not defeat the defendant’s accrued defences. It set aside the impleadment and amendment order.
Issues
- Whether the impleadment order was appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
- Whether the alleged assignment justified leave and amendment after the unexplained delay.
Provisions considered
- Order XXII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Continuation by an assignee requires the court’s leave, exercised judiciously rather than automatically upon an alleged transfer. (¶ 12–15)
Held
- An interlocutory order affecting vital and valuable rights can be a judgment for a Letters Patent appeal. Adding the assignee after 27 years affected substantial defence rights here, so the intra-court appeal was maintainable. (¶ 9–11)
- An alleged assignment alone was insufficient to grant leave. The application was not made within reasonable time and the corporate parties offered no explanation for the extraordinary delay; deferring every objection until trial did not remove the prejudice. (¶ 13–14)
- The assignee had sought consequential amendment directly without actually applying for leave to continue. Although amendment powers are liberal and mere delay ordinarily does not justify refusal, this commercial case involved serious prejudice and loss of accrued defence rights. (¶ 15–17)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Chamber Summons 187 of 2014 seeking impleadment and amendment dismissed; no costs.