As per case facts, the original defendants (petitioners) challenged an order allowing a third party (respondent no. 2) to be added as a co-plaintiff in a suit for specific performance ... filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no. 1). The defendants argued that the original plaintiff had divested its rights to the third party through an assignment deed executed *before* the suit was filed, and this fact was concealed. The defendants contended that the original plaintiff, having divested its rights, could not maintain the suit, and the third party's impleadment was an attempt to bypass the limitation period and defeat their defense. The question arose whether a third party, to whom rights were assigned *prior* to the filing of a suit, could be impleaded as a co-plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, especially when such impleadment would prejudice the existing defendants' rights. Finally, the High Court ruled that since the assignment of rights occurred *before* the suit was filed, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was not the appropriate provision for impleadment, as it typically covers situations of wrong plaintiff or parties necessary for complete adjudication, or *pendente lite* assignments (Order 22 Rule 10). The court found the trial court's reasoning erroneous and concluded that allowing the impleadment would defeat the defendants' rights. Therefore, the High Court quashed the order allowing the third party's impleadment, while allowing the third party to file a separate suit.