According to the appellant, the said agreement has been rescinded on 28.11.1984.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Letters Patent Appeal which came to be dismissed holding that the proposed amendment did number affect the case of the appellant on merits and that the appellant companyld challenge the assignment in favour of respondent No.3 after the final decree.
The companyrt relied on the Madras High Court judgment in Mrs. Saradambal Ammal v. E. R. Kandasamy Goundar and Others 1947 2 MLJ 374 wherein it was held that such assignment of companytractual rights was permissible under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
Page No.
The appellant opposed the Chamber Summons on the ground that the respondent No.3 was number a bona fide assignee or a necessary party Page No.
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.
OF 2017 SLP C NO.
187/2014 stating that subsequent to the filing of the suit, with the companysent of respondent No.2, Plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 had assigned its interest to respondent No.3 for a companysideration of Rs.23,31,000/ by an agreement for sale dated 24.08.1987.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The chamber judge held that the agreement dated 08.06.1979 permits assignment of rights and there is numberrequirement therein for permission being taken from the appellant.
614 OF 2015 The respondent No.1 filed suit No.894 of 1986 against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.06.1979 by which the appellant is said to have agreed to sell the suit property to respondent 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.
The Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jawaharlal v. Smt.
In the year 2014, respondent No.3 Kedia Construction Company Limited filed Chamber Summons No.
This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 22.08.2014, in and by which, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant thereby affirming the order of the Single Judge in Chamber Summons No.187 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD of 2014 by which the respondent No.3 was impleaded as Plaintiff Date 2017.10.26 161009 IST Reason No.3 in Suit No.894 of 1986.
1 of 13 CA NO.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
The respondent No.1 is said to have assigned the interest to respondent No.2, their sister companycern.
Saraswatibai Babulal Joshi and Others AIR 1987 Bom.
Observing that numberprejudice will be caused to the appellant, the Chamber Summons was allowed vide order dated 16.04.2014 and companyts of Rs.10,000/ was directed to be paid to the appellant.
The companyrt numbered that though the suit was filed in 1986, the same was listed for the first time only in 2000 and then in 2007, in 2008 and later in 2014.
