Case Note & Summary
The present Chamber Summons was taken out by third party applicants, MahHill Properties Pvt. Ltd. and another, seeking impleadment as party defendants to Suit No.783 of 1987 and consequential amendments in the plaint and pending proceedings. The suit concerns a partnership originally constituted between the original Plaintiff (since deceased, represented by Plaintiff Nos.1(a) and 1(b)) and the original Defendant (since deceased, represented by Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d)), along with one Oomer Ahmed, in the name of M/s S.P. Building Corporation. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the partnership has been abandoned or is of no legal effect, and that the suit property is the absolute property of the original Plaintiff. In the alternative, they pray for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. During the pendency of the suit, by a deed of assignment dated 21 June 2008, the original Defendant assigned his actionable claim and/or chose in action, including the right to contest the suit and his share in the partnership, to Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL) for valuable consideration. The applicants, claiming through HDIL, sought to be impleaded as defendants. The court considered the legal issue of whether an assignee of an actionable claim relating to a pending suit is entitled to be impleaded as a party as of right. The court held that under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an assignee cannot be impleaded without the leave of the court; the provision is permissive and not mandatory. The court has discretion to grant or refuse leave, and in this case, the suit was at an advanced stage, and the assignee had not sought leave earlier. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons was dismissed, and the applicants were not entitled to be impleaded.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Assignee - Order 22 Rule 10 CPC - Assignment of Actionable Claim - The court held that an assignee of an actionable claim or chose in action relating to a pending suit cannot be impleaded as a party as of right; leave of the court is required under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. The provision is permissive and not mandatory, and the court has discretion to grant or refuse leave. (Paras 4-6) B) Civil Procedure - Substitution - Order 22 Rule 10 CPC - Right to Continue Suit - The court clarified that Order 22 Rule 10 CPC does not confer an automatic right on an assignee to be substituted or impleaded; it only enables the assignee to apply for leave to continue the suit. The court may grant leave if it is just and convenient, considering the stage of the suit and other circumstances. (Paras 5-7) C) Partnership - Assignment of Share - Deed of Assignment - The court noted that the original defendant assigned his share in the suit partnership and the right to contest the suit to HDIL. However, the assignee cannot be impleaded without court leave, and the application for impleadment was dismissed as the suit was at an advanced stage and the assignee had not sought leave earlier. (Paras 2, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an assignee of an actionable claim or chose in action relating to a pending suit is entitled to be impleaded as a party defendant as of right, or whether leave of the court is required under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Chamber Summons No.55 of 2015 is dismissed. The applicants are not entitled to be impleaded as party defendants.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
- assignment of actionable claim
- impleadment of assignee
- right to continue suit
- substitution without court leave
