Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dile Ram & Ors. vs . State Of H.P. on 7 July, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
Dile Ram & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. .
Civil Suit No.113 of 2018 07.07.2022 Present: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
M/s Dinesh Thakur, Sumesh Raj and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals with M/s Amit Dhumal and Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General, for defendants No.1 to 3-State.
Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate, for defendant No.4.
Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate, for defendants No.5 and 6. OMP No. 601 of 2019 in C.S. No. 113 of 2018 By way of this application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made by the proforma defendants/applicants to transpose them as plaintiffs in the suit.
In terms of the averments made in the application, the applicants state that they are joint owners of the suit land alongwith the plaintiffs which was damaged by the acts of omission and commission of the defendants/non-applicants while carrying out the work of construction of the road in issue and in these circumstances, as there interest is not averse to that of the plaintiffs and rather a perusal of the plaint would demonstrate that in para-1 thereof, it has been categorically mentioned that the suit is being filed by the plaintiffs for their interest as well the interest of the proforma defendants, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice in case this application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be transposed as plaintiffs in the suit.
::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2022 20:03:31 :::CIS Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned Legal Aid Counsel .
appearing for the plaintiffs has no objection with regard to the prayer which has been made in the application.
Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application on the ground that there are no cogent reasons spelled out in the application as to why the applicants could not initially join the plaintiffs for the institution of the suit and, therefore, he has prayed that as filing of the application is nothing but an afterthought, the same be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application as well as the reply, this Court is of the considered view that it will be in the interest of justice in case the application is allowed and the applicants are permitted to be transposed as plaintiffs. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs praying for a decree for recovery of the amount on account of damages. It has been categorically mentioned in para-1 of the plaint that the suit was being filed by the plaintiffs for their interest as also the interest of proforma defendants and the interest of plaintiffs and proforma defendants was not averse to each other.
In these circumstances, as now, it is the prayer of the proforma defendants to be transposed as plaintiffs and further plaintiffs have no objection qua the same, this Court of the considered view that no prejudice shall be caused to the defendants in case the application is allowed, more so, when the suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs as has been mentioned ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2022 20:03:31 :::CIS in the plaint also for the welfare of the proforma defendants, it .
will be in the interest of justice to transpose them as plaintiffs. Accordingly, this application is allowed and proforma defendants No.5 and 6 are ordered to be transposed as plaintiffs No.4 and 5 in the suit. Application stands disposed of. Amended memo of parties be filed by the learned Legal Aid Counsel within two weeks.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
r Judge
July 07, 2022
(vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2022 20:03:31 :::CIS