https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312684 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. en-us Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:03:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312684 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312684