LexLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SANJEEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2017] 10 S.C.R. 208 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. SANJEEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 16964 of2017) B OCTOBER 24, 2017 c [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Letters Patent Appeal: Maintainability of- The Letters Patent Appeal lie from the judgment which affect the vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the parties concerned - In the instant suit for specific performance of agreement of sale of suit property, the single judge of High Court allowed impleadment application filed by assignee 27 years after the suit - Letters Patent Appeal against the order of si;;g!r! judge - Dismissed on the f?1v1111d that the substitution of assignee does not affect the D rights oj uppellant on merits and that appellant could challenge the assiiw1wnt after the final decree - Held: The order allowing the application impleading third respondent as assignee filed after 27 years of filing of the suit vitally affects the valuable rights of the appellant - The order allowing amendment of plaint by impleading E F third respondent as 'Plaintiff no.3' on the basis of alleged assignment of agreement decides a vital question which concerns the rights of the parties and hence is a 'judgment" to maintain the Letters Pate/If Appeal witl;f.'1 the meaning of Clause I 5 - Therefore Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. 22 r.10 - Scope of - Held: Or.22 1: 10 enables only continuance of suit by leave of court - ft is the duty of the court to decide whether leave to be granted or not to the person or to the assignee to continue the suit - The discretion to implead or not to implead parties who apply to continue the suit must be exercised G judiciously and not arbitrarily - In the instant case, High Court was not right in holding that mere alleged transfer/assignment of the agreement would be sufficient to grant leave to third respondent to continue the suit - From the filing of the suit in 1986, over the years, valuable right of defence accrued to the appellant; such H valuable right of defence could not be defeated by granting leave 208 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. SANJEEV 209 BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. to the third respondent to continue the suit in the application filed A under Or.22 r.10 after 27 years of filing of the suit - Single judge was not right in saying that impleading third respondent as Plaintiff No.3 would cause no prejudice to the appellant and that the issues ccm be raised at the time of trial. Or. 22 r.10 - Amendment of suit - The application was filed B after 27 years of filing of the suit - Of course, the power to allow the a111endment of suit is wide and the court should not adopt hyper technical approach - In considering amendment applications, court should adopt liberal approach and amendments are to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations - Mere delay is not a gmund for c rejecting the amend111ent - But in the case in hand, the parties are not rustic litigants; all the respondents are companies and the dispute between the parties is a commercial litigation - In such facts and circumstances, the ame11d111ent prayed in the Chamber Summons filed under 01:22 1: JO CPC ought not to have been allowed, as the sa111e would cause serious prejudice to the appellant. D Specific perfor111ance: Limitation l111pleadment application - Held: In a suit for specific performance, application .for impleadment must be filed within a reasonable time - The application filed for impleading third respondent as Plaintiff No.3 was not filed within reasonable time - No explanation is offered for E such an inordinate delay of 27 years, which was not kept in view by the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Clause 15 of Letters Patent provides for intra- court appeals against the judgment of Single .Judge of the High F Court. The right of the Letters Patent Appeal to the High Court depends upon whether or not the decision of the Single Judge appealed from affects the merits of the question between the parties and their \'aluable rights. Whether an order is a 'judgment' or an 'interlocutory order' depends upon whether or not, it has G finally decided the rights of the parties and whether it has the effect of affecting the rights of the parties. For an order to be a 'judgment', it is not always necessary that it should put an end to the co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.