Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (10) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (10) TMI 1650 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3 constitutes a "judgment" under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Whether the 27-year delay in filing the application for impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is justified.
3. Whether the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3 causes prejudice to the Appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3 constitutes a "judgment" under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:

The Supreme Court examined whether the order of the Single Judge, which allowed the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3, qualifies as a "judgment" under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. (1981) 4 SCC 8, which stated that an interlocutory order affecting valuable rights of the parties and causing serious injustice can be considered a "judgment." The Court concluded that the order allowing the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 after 27 years vitally affects the valuable rights of the Appellant and thus qualifies as a "judgment" to maintain the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Whether the 27-year delay in filing the application for impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is justified:

The Court scrutinized the 27-year delay in filing the application for impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. It noted that Order XXII Rule 10 CPC allows the continuation of a suit by an assignee during the pendency of the suit, provided the court grants leave. The Court emphasized that the discretion to grant leave must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Court found that the application for impleadment was not filed within a reasonable time, and no explanation was provided for the inordinate delay of 27 years. The High Court's failure to consider this delay was deemed erroneous.

3. Whether the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3 causes prejudice to the Appellant:

The Supreme Court addressed the potential prejudice to the Appellant due to the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3. The Court observed that the valuable right of defense accrued to the Appellant over the years cannot be defeated by allowing the impleadment after such a long delay. The Court held that the Single Judge's order, which stated that no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant and that the issues could be raised at the time of trial, was incorrect. The Court concluded that allowing the impleadment would cause serious prejudice to the Appellant, depriving them of a valuable right of defense.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal. It dismissed Chamber Summons No. 187 of 2014 in Suit No. 894 of 1986, finding that the application for impleadment was not filed within a reasonable time and that allowing it would cause serious prejudice to the Appellant. The Court emphasized that the substantial rights of defense accrued to the Appellant over the years could not be taken away by permitting the impleadment after 27 years.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates