The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the Bombay High Court's decision affirming the Single Judge's order impleading respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3 in a 1986 suit for specific performance of a 1979 sale agreement.[1000621770001] (!) (!) Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 894/1986 seeking specific performance or damages, alleging the agreement was not rescinded despite the appellant's claim of rescission in 1984; respondent No. 1 later assigned interest to respondent No. 2, its sister concern.[1000621770002] In 2014, respondent No. 3 filed Chamber Summons No. 187/2014 claiming a 1987 assignment from respondent No. 1 (with respondent No. 2's consent) and seeking impleadment as Plaintiff No. 3 plus amendment of the plaint.[1000621770003] The appellant opposed on grounds of 27-year delay post-suit filing and issues framing, non-bona fide assignment, and lack of transferable rights post-rescission.[1000621770003][1000621770005] The Single Judge allowed impleadment, holding merits to be tried later, assignment permissible without appellant's consent, and delay not fatal.[1000621770004] The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.[1000621770001]

The Court held the Single Judge's order was a "judgment" under Letters Patent Clause 15, as it vitally affected the appellant's valuable defense rights after 27 years, enabling the appeal.[1000621770008][1000621770009][1000621770010] (!) (!) (!) Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, suits may continue by leave of court post-assignment pendente lite, but discretion must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily.[1000621770011] (!) (!) Mere assignment allegation is insufficient; impleadment applications in specific performance suits require filing within reasonable time to avoid prejudice.[1000621770012][1000621770013] (!) (!) (!) Here, the 27-year unexplained delay caused serious prejudice to the appellant's accrued defense rights in commercial litigation between companies.[1000621770013][1000621770015] No prior application under Order 22 Rule 10 was filed; the summons sought direct amendment, which should not be liberally allowed to defeat rights despite general policy favoring amendments to avoid multiplicity.[1000621770014][1000621770015]

The impugned judgment was set aside, appeal allowed, and Chamber Summons No. 187/2014 dismissed.[1000621770016]