Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: transpose in Binod Kumar Singh vs Bhola Roy And Ors on 25 February, 2020Matching Fragments
Patna High Court CWJC No.4303 of 2011 dt.25-02-2020 Date : 25-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By an order dated 4.6.2007 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Chapra, Saran, in Title Suit No. 191 of 2006, the Secretary Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna, (Defendant No.4) has been transposed as a plaintiff by allowing an application on behalf of Defendant No. 4, which order has been assailed in the present writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Board through its Secretary was impleaded as the defendant in the said suit which was filed originally by Thakur Ram Janaki Mandir Trust through the Secretary of the Trust Committee as plaintiff No. 1 and Moti Rai, the Secretary, Ram Janaki Mandir Trust Committee as plaintiff No. 2 who has been impleaded as respondent No. 11 herein. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the Title Suit whereas the Secretary, Bihar State Religious Trust Board was impleaded as defendant No. 4.
4. I have heard Mr. Umashankar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Religious Trust Board.
5. Mr. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has at the very outset submitted that the Secretary of the Board is no legal entity and there is no decision of the Board within the meaning of the Act which could be the basis for the claim of defendant No. 4 to be transposed as plaintiff. He has submitted, applying the doctrine of dominus litis that a plaintiff is the master of his case and he is at liberty to withdraw his suit at any stage. According to him, in the nature of dispute, defendant No. 4 could not have been transposed as a plaintiff as in the plaint, the plaintiffs have been claiming their title which relief the Board cannot claim. It is his submission accordingly that in no case, defendant No. 4 could have been transposed as a plaintiff. He has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in case of Thakur Chaudhry and Others Vs. Brahmdeo Patna High Court CWJC No.4303 of 2011 dt.25-02-2020 Chaudhry and Others (AIR 1979 Patna 58) with special reference to paragraphs 7 and 9 thereof and Basudeb Narayan Singh and others Vs. Shesh Narayan Singh and others (AIR 1979 Patna 73). He has also relied on a decision of Jharkhand High Court in case of M. S. Hoda Vs. Dipti Mukherjee and Others (AIR 2006 Jharkhand 13) and has relied on the discussion in paragraph-7 thereof.
11. It is thus clear observation of this Court in case of Thakur Chaudhry and others Vs. Shesh Narayan Singh and Others (supra) that a defendant may be allowed to be transposed in case the plaintiff is withdrawing from the suit. It can be easily seen that the original plaintiffs and defendant No. 4/transposed plaintiff did not ever have conflicting cases at any stage, before the plaintiff decided to withdraw the suit by acceding to the claim of defendant No. 1 of his Title over the suit property. The decision of this Court in case of Basudeb Narayan Singh and others Vs. Brahmdeo Chaudhry and Others (supra) is also of no help to the petitioner in view of the following observation made by this Court:-
"... It is well settled that if it is necessary for a proper adjudication of the real controversy in suit, the court may, acting under O. 1, R. 10 (2) of the Code, add or strike out parties or transpose them from one category to the other (see R.S. Maddanappa (deceased) v.
Chandramma, AIR 1965 SC 1812 and Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeswar Prasad, Patna High Court CWJC No.4303 of 2011 dt.25-02-2020 Bhakat, AIR 1931 PC 162). In the last case the Privy Council said that the course of adding pro forma defendants as co-plaintiffs should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In this view of the matter, the court below had the jurisdiction to decide as to whether or not Parmila Devi should be allowed to be transposed to the category of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs to the category of defendants. The court below has decided it in favour of the intervenor defendant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order in this respect suffers from want of jurisdiction or illegal exercise thereof".