Inordinate delay moving impleadment application after knowledge suit warrants rejection

A third-party applicant seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC who remains silent for years despite having actual or constructive knowledge of the suit proceedings forfeits discretionary relief. Where physical service of summons bearing the third party's acknowledgment stamp establishes knowledge at the inception of litigation, waiting until evidence is closed and ex-parte proceedings are ordered constitutes gross laches. Moving an impleadment application after an inordinate delay of nearly nine years without cogent explanation justifies summary rejection of the request. Courts must reject belated intervention motions designed to frustrate or delay ex-parte suit adjudications. Procedural vigilance is expected from any party claiming a legitimate interest in ongoing judicial proceedings. Allowing late-stage entries disrupts trial timelines and prejudices diligent litigants. Inexcusable delay creates an equitable bar against granting discretionary impleadment. Thus, courts correctly penalize prolonged inaction by dismissing belated intervention attempts. (NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Ors. | 2026 INSC 8)