Interlocutory orders affecting valuable rights can be appealable as judgments; delayed impleadment was refused for prejudicing defence rights.

An interlocutory order permitting impleadment and amendment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was treated as a judgment because it materially affected the defendant's valuable rights, making an intra-court appeal maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. However, impleadment of an alleged assignee after 27 years of the suit was unjustified: although assignment or devolution of interest during pendency may be recognised, the court must exercise discretion judicially, and such relief requires timely application and fair conduct. The inordinate unexplained delay and the resulting prejudice to the defendant's accrued defence rights justified refusal of impleadment and consequential amendment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order allowing impleadment and amendment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was a judgment appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; (ii) Whether impleadment of the alleged assignee after 27 years of the suit was justified.

Issue (i): Whether an order allowing impleadment and amendment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was a judgment appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Analysis: An interlocutory order may nevertheless be treated as a judgment if it finally decides a matter of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of a party. The order in question permitted impleadment of the alleged assignee as plaintiff and had the effect of altering the position of the defendant in a material way. Such an order was not a mere routine procedural direction because it had consequences affecting the defendant's rights in the suit.

Conclusion: The order was a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and an intra-court appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether impleadment of the alleged assignee after 27 years of the suit was justified.

Analysis: Under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assignment or devolution of interest during pendency of a suit may be recognised, but leave of the court is required and the discretion must be exercised judicially. In a suit for specific performance, impleadment may be permitted only when the applicant approaches the court within a reasonable time and where the conduct is above board. Here, the application was moved after an inordinate delay of 27 years, without satisfactory explanation, and the proposed impleadment would have prejudiced the defendant by taking away an accrued valuable right of defence.

Conclusion: The impleadment and consequential amendment were not justified and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing the Chamber Summons was set aside, and the application for impleadment and amendment was dismissed because the delayed application would unfairly prejudice the defendant's accrued defence rights.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory order is appealable as a judgment when it affects valuable rights, and impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be refused where the application is unduly delayed and would cause prejudice by destroying an accrued defence.

---