Karnataka High Court
Mrs Jacqueline Pinto vs Field Services And Inter Cultural ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16980
WP No. 15169 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.15169 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. JACQUELINE PINTO,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O DIONYSIUS,
MOHAN PINTO,
R/AT NO.14/3,
NEAR REST HOUSE PARK,
CBD BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
TRUSTEE OF FILED SERVICES
AND INTER CULTURAL LEARNING INDIA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FIELD SERVICES AND INTER
CULTURAL LEARNING INDIA
A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST
Digitally signed HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
by CHANDANA B AT NO.453, 15TH CROSS,
M LAKKASANDRA , WILSON GARDEN,
Location: High BENGALURU - 560 030
Court of REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES
Karnataka
2. MR. RAKESH SOANS,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O PRAKASH T SOANS,
R/AT A10-18-01, ELITA,
PROMENADE 101, 18TH MAIN,
BEERESHWARA NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
7TH PHASE, JP NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
TRUSTEE OF FIELD SERVICES AND
INTER CULTURAL LEARNING INDIA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16980
WP No. 15169 of 2021
3. MR. SANJAY DEODHAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O JOHN G DEODHAR
R/AT 102, MEENAKSHI MANOR,
10TH D MAIN, 1ST BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 011.
TRUSTEE OF FIELD SERVICES
AND INTER CULTURAL LEARING INDIA
4. MR. PRAKASH T SOANS,
S/O THEORDORE SOANS,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT CHICKSAL ROAD
KUNDAPURA - 576 201
UDUPI DIST.,
KARNATAKA
5. EKA PEOPLE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD.,
A COMPANY UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
453, 2ND FLOOR, LAKKASANDRA,
15TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU - 560 030.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
6. MR. T RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O M. THIMMEGOWDA,
R/AT NO.65, VANIWILAS ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
7. MR. JESSI JEEVAN PEDAPUDI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O MR. ASSERVADAM PEDAPUDDI,
R/AT NO.6, CHAITHANYA SAMARPAN,
WHITEFIELD, HOSAKOTE ROAD,
KANNAMANGALA,
KADUGODI POST,
BANGALORE - 560 067
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, ADV. FOR CAV.R1 TO 3 AND R5;
SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R6 & R7;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 IS WAIVED
COPY SERVED ON BHANU PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R4)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16980
WP No. 15169 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS OF O.S.NO.3833 OF 2020 PENDING BEFORE THE LD.
PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
(CCH-1) AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2021
DISMISSING IA NO.X UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN (ANNEXURE-A)
O.S.NO.3833 OF 2020 PENDING BEFORE THE LD. PRINCIPAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-1) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.3833/2020 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 23.06.2021, whereby the application I.A.X filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 under Order I Rue 10 (2) r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to transpose herself from position/rank/status of defendant No.4 to that of plaintiff No.3 in the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.6 and 7 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit under Section 92 of CPC seeking various reliefs against respondent Nos.1 to 5 - defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6. In the said suit, the petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No.4 having -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 supported the claim and contentions of the plaintiffs filed the instant application - I.A.No.X under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to transpose herself from position/rank/status of defendant No.4 to that of plaintiff No.3 in the suit. The said application was not opposed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 - plaintiffs, who in fact stated that they had no objection for the petitioner - defendant No.4 to be transposed as plaintiff No.3. However, the said application was opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 - defendant Nos.1 to 3, pursuant to which, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court committed a grave and serious error of law and fact in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for transposition as plaintiff No.3 by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and the impugned order deserves to be set aside and I.A.No.X filed by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 petitioner deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:
i) Kiran Tandon Vs Allahabad Development
Authority & Anr - (2004) 10 SCC 745
ii) Irapawwa @ Irawwa And Ors. vs Channabasawwa
And Ors. - ILR 2004 KAR 5130
iii) Deepak Vs. Arvind and Ors - W.P.No.103466/2018 dated 07.02.2020
iv) Kumudavalli Ammal alias Kuppammal Vs. P.N.Purushottam - AIR 1978 Mad 205
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 - plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 would submit that even before the Trial Court, they had stated that they had no objection for the instant I.A.No.X to be allowed and for the petitioner to be transposed as plaintiff No.3 in the suit along with plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly, they state that even the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside by allowing I.A.No.X filed by the petitioner. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court rejected I.A.No.X on the ground that the petitioner - defendant No.4 had already instituted a separate suit in Closure O.S.No.476/2020 against defendant Nos.1 and 3 and plaintiff No.1 herein for a declaration that the petitioner was a Trustee of the defendant No.1- Trust which was yet to be decided in the said suit which was pending adjudication and as such, till disposal of the said suit in which the independent claim of the petitioner was decided, it was not permissible for the petitioner to be transposed as plaintiff No.3 in the present suit. The Trial Court also held that transposition of the petitioner - defendant No.4 to the rank/position/status of plaintiff No.3 would arise only if respondent Nos.6 and 7 - plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 seek to withdraw their claim and in the absence of any such withdrawal, the petitioner was not entitled to get herself transposed as plaintiff No.3.
9. In this context, it is profitable to extract the provisions contained in Order I Rule 10(2) and (6) of CPC which read as under:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021
10 (2) Court may strike out or add parties -
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
xxx 10 (6) The Court may on the application of any party and after notice to the other parties affected by the application and on such terms and conditions as it may impose transpose a plaintiff to the position of a defendant or subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), a defendant to the position of a plaintiff.
10. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the power of the Court to transpose a defendant to the rank/position/status of a plaintiff and vice versa has no nexus or connection whatsoever with any separate claim/suit filed by such a party and the same is neither relevant nor germane to consider an application for transposition; it is therefore clear that merely because the petitioner - defendant No.4 had instituted a separate suit in Closure OS.No.476/2020, the said circumstance could neither have been made the basis nor relied -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 upon by the Trial Court to reject I.A.No.X for transposition filed by the petitioner and consequently, the said reasoning adopted by the Trial Court is clearly erroneous and unsound and the same deserves to be set aside.
11. The aforesaid provisions relating to transposition of the parties would also clearly indicate that the right of a defendant to a suit to seek transposition to the rank/position/status of an additional plaintiff would neither be dependant nor circumscribed by the plaintiff withdrawing his claim in the suit as wrongly held by the Trial Court; the test to be applied while considering an application for transposition of a defendant to the rank/position/status of the plaintiff is as to whether there is commonality, similarity etc., to the claims of such a defendant and plaintiff and whether there is any conflict of interest between the defendant and the plaintiff; in other words, since the material on record including the pleadings, applications, affidavits, documents, etc., of the parties indicated that there was no conflict of interest between the petitioner - defendant No.4 and respondent Nos.6 and 7 - plaintiffs and instead, there was commonality, similarity etc., between their claims, the petitioner- defendant No.4, who not only supported the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 claim of the plaintiffs but also specifically put forth claims, contentions etc., against the contesting defendant Nos.1 to 3 would be entitled to seek transposition as plaintiff No.3 and non- withdrawal/abandonment of the suit by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 has no relevance, much less nexus or connection whatsoever with the right of the petitioner to seek transposition as plaintiff No.3 in the present case and consequently, the said finding recorded by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.
12. The Trial Court also committed an error in placing reliance upon the provisions contained in Order XXIII Rule 1A of CPC in order to come to the conclusion that transposition is permitted only in the event plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had abandoned or withdrawn their claim; the said reasoning is clearly fallacious inasmuch as the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the provisions contained in Order I Rules 10(2) and (6) supra which clearly indicate that irrespective of and notwithstanding the fact as to whether the plaintiffs abandoned or withdrew their claim, the petitioner was entitled to seek transposition as plaintiff No.3 and failure on the part of the Trial Court to appreciate this has resulted in erroneous conclusion.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021
13. In Kiran Tandon's case supra, the Apex Court has held as under:
"4. Shri Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the claimant has at the very outset assailed the order of the High Court whereby the application moved by the State of U.P. for transposing it as appellant in the appeals preferred by ADA was allowed. In the appeals preferred by the ADA against the judgment and award of the Addl. District Judge Smt. Kiran Tandon (widow of the original claimant Ravindra Kumar Tandon) was arrayed as respondent no.1 and State of U.P. was arrayed as proforma respondent no.2. The applications for transposition were supported by the affidavit of Tehsildar Sadar, Allahabad wherein it was averred that an objection had been raised on behalf of State of U.P. before the Addl. District Judge that the acquired land was State land and therefore the entire compensation amount should be awarded to State of U.P. The land had been acquired for construction of residential flats by ADA which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is therefore competent to raise any or all of the objection on behalf of the State Government. Therefore, in order to avoid any technical objection and in the interest of justice it was expedient that the State of U.P. may be transposed as appellant no. 2 in the appeal. The High Court held that as the ADA and State of U.P. were disputing the title of the claimant to receive the entire amount of compensation and State of U.P. having already been impleaded as proforma respondent in the appeal, the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 interest of justice required that it should be transposed as appellant in the appeal. Sub-rule 2 of Order I Rule 10 lays down that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. It is well settled that the Court has power under Sub-rule (2) order I Rule 10 CPC to transfer a defendant to the category of plaintiffs and where the plaintiff agrees, such transposition should be readily made. This power could be exercised by the High Court in appeal, if necessary, suo motu to do complete justice between the parties. This principle was laid by the Privy Council in Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeshwar Prosad AIR 1931 PC 162 and has been consistently followed by all the Courts. In fact the pleas raised by the ADA and State of U.P. were identical and in order to affectuate complete adjudication of the question involved in the appeal it was in the interest of justice to transpose State of U.P. as appellant no.2 in the appeal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the course adopted by the High Court in transposing the State of U.P. as appellant in both the appeals."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021
14. In Irapawwa's case supra, this Court has held as under:
"12. It is well established that the Court has power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. to transpose a defendant to the category of plaintiffs. The Court can by suo-motu or on the application of any of the defendants may transpose a defendant as plaintiff. Transposition can be made to do complete justice between the parties and with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. I am of the view that for a complete and effectual adjudication upon the question involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of. proceedings, the Trial Court has allowed the applications transposing 7th defendant as co-plaintiff. The Trial Court was also right in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.
13. In the case of KIRAN TANDON v.
ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR., 2004 AIR SCW 2089 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while approving the order of the High Court in allowing the application for transposition has held as follows:
"Therefore, in order to avoid any technical objection and in the interest of justice it was expedient that the State of U.P. may be transposed as Appellant No. 2 in the appeal. The High Court held that as the ADA and State of U.P. were disputing the title of the claimant to receive the entire amount of compensation and State of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 U.P. having already been impleaded as proforma respondent in the appeal the interest of justice required that it should be transposed as Appellant in the appeal. Sub-rule (2) of Order 1, Rule 10 lays down that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. It is well settled that the Court has power under sub- rule (2) Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to transfer a defendant to the category of plaintiffs and where the plaintiff agrees, such transposition should be readily made. This power could be exercised by the High Court in appeal, if necessary, suo motu to do complete justice between the parties. This principle was laid by the Privy Council in BHUPENDRA NARAYAN SINHA v. RAJESHWAR PRASAD, AIR 1931 PC 162 and has been consistently followed by all the Courts. In fact the pleas raised by the ADA and State of U.P. were identical and in order to effectuate complete adjudication of the question involved in the appeal it was in the interest of justice to transpose State
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 of U.P. as appellant No.2 in the appeal. We are therefore, of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the course adopted by the High Court in transposing the State of U.P. as appellant in both the appeals."
The aforesaid decision fully supports the case of the respondents 1 and 3.
15. Similarly, in Deepak's case supra, this Court has held as under:
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the view that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC of the petitioner/defendant No.24 to transpose him as plaintiff No.1. The suit is one for partition and separate possession.
In a suit for partition, everyone would be treated as plaintiff and share in the properties would be allotted to each of them. In the instant case, the defendant No.24/petitioner herein had filed the written statement and at para 24 stated as follows:
"22. The Defendant No.24 submits that as he is also one of the members of the co-
parceaners and has right, title and interest in the properties involved in the present suit, the Defendant No.24 also prays that the properties be divided by metes and bounds
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 and the share of the Defendant No.24 also be granted."
The above paragraph would demonstrate that there was no conflict of interest between the petitioner and his father. The petitioner/defendant No.24 has stated that he is one of the member of the co-parceaners and has right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties and prayed for partition of those properties and to allot his share. The learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out any conflict of interest between the petitioner/defendant No.24 and plaintiff No.1. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 died on 04.06.2016. Mere stating that there was conflict of interest between the petitioner's father and petitioner himself in the affidavit accompanying the application, would not constitute conflict of interest. There is no material or averment in the 1entire pleading which is on record to indicate the conflict of interest between the petitioner/defendant No.24 and his father plaintiff No.1. In the affidavit it is made clear that at the time of filing the suit as the petitioner was not available to sign the vakalath and the case papers, he was arrayed as defendant No.24. Thus, I find no conflict of interest between the petitioner/defendant No.24 and plaintiff No.1, who died during pendency of the suit.
7. Order 1 Rule 10(6) of CPC provides for transposition of plaintiff as defendant and defendant as plaintiff after notice to the other parties on such terms and conditions as it may impose. In the instant case, the other parties to the suit were notified with regard to transposition application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.24. Even
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 the defendant No.9 had filed objection, but was unable to point out any conflict of interest between the parties. Thus, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application. Hence, I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the petitioner/defendant No.24 is allowed and the petitioner/defendant No.24 is transposed as plaintiff No.1. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
16. As stated supra, in the affidavit in support of the application, I.A.No.X filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4, she has made specific allegations against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in relation to the mismanagement and mal-administration of the defendant No.1-Trust, which would clearly indicate that there is no conflict of interest between petitioner and plaintiffs who have also made identical/similar allegations against defendant Nos.1 to 3, thereby establishing that there is commonality/similarity between the contentions, claims, stance etc., of both petitioner - defendant No.4 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, thereby leading to the sole and unmistakable inference that the petitioner would be entitled to get herself transpose as additional plaintiff No.3 in the suit; in fact, at paragraph 3 of the plaint itself, plaintiffs have categorically stated that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 had illegally attempted to remove
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 both the plaintiff No.1 and petitioner - defendant No.4 from the position of a Trustee of defendant No.1 - Trust, which is a public charitable Trust against whom the plaintiffs had instituted the instant suit under Section 92 of CPC; it is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that vide order dated 19.08.2020, the Trial Court granted leave and permission in favour of plaintiffs to institute a suit under Section 92 of CPC as a result of which, the petition originally filed by the plaintiffs in Misc No.1/2020 was converted into the instant suit in O.S.No.3833/2020 pending consideration before the Trial Court, in which the plaintiffs have sought for various reliefs against defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in relation to the defendant No.1-Trust; it is well settled that in a suit filed under Section 92 of CPC, the Court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction and any person(s) is entitled to ventilate his/her grievance by seeking impleadment as a party - plaintiff / defendant to such a suit and consequently, on this ground also, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court clearly fell in error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner without appreciating the prima facie, the petitioner who claims to be not only interested in the affairs of the defendant No.1-Trust but also claims to be a Trustee would be entitled to ventilate her grievance including
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021 seeking transposition as additional plaintiff No.3 to the suit. At any rate, since, the merits/demerits of the rival contentions of the petitioner and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and the defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 on the other would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court after hearing both sides and not at the stage of considering an application for transposition, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 if the petitioner - defendant No.4 is transposed as plaintiff No.3 particularly when the said remaining defendants would be not only entitled to defend/contest the claims of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 but also the petitioner herein and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground also.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court referred to supra, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court clearly misdirected itself and fell in error in rejecting the application I.A.No.X filed by the petitioner by passing the impugned order which deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16980 WP No. 15169 of 2021
18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23.06.2021 passed on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.3833/2020 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside and consequently, I.A.X stands allowed and petitioner-
defendant No.4 is hereby transposed as plaintiff No.3.
(iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter between all the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS/SV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11