TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent No. 1 and in the alternative directing the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,75,021.05 with further interest on the sum of Rs. 4,52,778/- at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till payment or realization. According to the Appellant, the said agreement has been rescinded on 28.11.1984. The Respondent No. 1 is said to have assigned the interest to Respondent No. 2, their sister concern. 4. In the year 2014, Respondent No. 3-Kedia Construction Company Limited filed Chamber Summons No. 187/2014 stating that subsequent to the filing of the suit, with the consent of Respondent No. 2, Plaintiff No. 1/Respondent No. 1 had assigned its interest to Respondent No. 3 for a consideration of Rs. 23,31,000/- by an agreement for sale dated 24.08.1987. The Chamber Summons was filed to implead Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3 and praying to amend the suit pursuant to the agreement of sale in its favour. The Appellant opposed the Chamber Summons on the ground that the Respondent No. 3 was not a bona fide assignee or a necessary party and that the issues in the suit were framed on 31.01.2014 and that there has been an inordinate delay of 27 years in filing the application which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, is a sheer abuse of law. Counsel further submitted that there was a gross delay of 27 years in filing the impleadment application and the High Court glossed over the law and facts and erred in allowing the application without keeping in view an inordinate delay of 27 years in filing the application. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents Mr. Shekhar Naphade submitted that the order allowing the application in Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure is in the nature of an interim order and not finally determined the rights of the parties and hence no Letters Patent Appeal will lie. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Respondent No. 3 claims as an assignee of the rights of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has the right to continue the suit and the order allowing impleading application does not affect the rights of the parties. It was further contended that the rights of Respondent No. 1 under the agreement of sale is a transferable right to sue and the assignee having acquired the right during the pendency of the suit for specific performance. It was submitted that the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 Code of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g., an order refusing an adjournment, an order refusing to summon an additional witness or documents, an order refusing to condone delay in filing documents, after the first date of hearing an order of costs to one of the parties for its default or an order exercising discretion in respect of a procedural matter against one party or the other. Such orders are purely interlocutory and cannot constitute judgments because it will always be open to the aggrieved party to make a grievance of the order passed against the party concerned in the appeal against the final judgment passed by the trial Judge. 115. Thus, in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as judgments because the grievance on this score can be corrected by the appellate court in appeal against the final judgment. 116. We might give another instance of an interlocutory order which am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal. 12. The stand of Respondent No. 3 is that it claims as an assignee of the rights of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that it has the right to continue the suit Under Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of limitation, do not apply to such an application. To appreciate merits of this contention, we may usefully refer to Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: ORDER XXII: DEATH, MARRIAGE AND INSOLVENCY OF PARTIES .......... 10. 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 person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. (2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of Sub-rule (1). Under Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, when there has been an assignment or devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court. 41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff. 41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the court or the application is unduly delayed then the court will be....