Supreme Court - Daily Orders
W.Parthasarathy (Dead) Th. Lrs. vs Santhalakshmi . on 4 September, 2017
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
1
ITEM NO. 18 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13079/2014
W.PARTHASARATHY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SANTHALAKSHMI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR APPLICATION FOR TRANSPOSITION ON IA 1/2016)
Date : 04-09-2017 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
[IN CHAMBERS]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Ramesh, Adv.
Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.S. Mahadevan, Adv
Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. G. Natarajan, Adv.
Mr. B. Sridhar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The settlement of deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said settlement deed was assailed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in a suit filed which was decreed ex-parte. The application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree was rejected and that order was assailed in a Civil Revision Petition which was allowed by the High Court. That order dated 26 th February, 2014 is assailed in the present Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner (defendant No. 1 in Suit).
Signature Not Verified The petitioner has now passed away. Respondent Nos. 2 to4 are unrepresented before the Court despite service been Digitally signed by POOJA SEHGAL Date: 2017.09.07 11:36:11 IST Reason: completed. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 seek transposition as petitioners being the lrs of deceased petitioner.
2The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the ground that said respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in their individual right never assailed the impugned order and they cannot now be transposed in place of the deceased petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 pleads that there is identity of interest between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and in such a situation, the prayer made is appropriate. In support of this contention, reference is made in Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and Another; (2004)10 SCC 745, relying upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur v. Rajeswar Prasad Bhakat; AIR 1931 PC 162, and has been consistently followed by all the Courts.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. We have two set of parties - one supporting the settlement deed represented by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the others in opposition which include the executant of the deed being the late petitioner. It is, thus, in the fitness of things to do complete justice to parties that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being the only other represented respondents before Court should be transposed as petitioners.
The application for transposition of proforma respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as petitioners is, accordingly, allowed and memo of parties be taken on record. Cause title be amended accordingly.
(POOJA SEHGAL) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER