Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The respondent nos.3 to 6 and the said Juliet D'Souza filed an application in the said Appeal No.4 of 2012 before the Slum Tribunal for their transposition as the appellants on the ground that their alleged interest in the said appeal was similar to that of the original appellants and the cause of action in the said appeal would wp1139-19.doc subsist even after the original appellants withdraw their appeal. The petitioner filed an affidavit in reply opposing the said application for transposition of the respondent nos.3 to 6 as the appellants on various grounds. On 4th May, 2018 the said Juliet D'Souza also filed an affidavit placing on record that she had entered into an agreement with the petitioner in respect of her structure on the plot bearing CTS no.371 (part) and 374(part) and prayed for deletion of her name as the applicant in the said transposition application. She also confirmed the correctness of the impugned notification in the said affidavit and gave a consent for implementation of the development scheme undertaken by the petitioner.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the paragraphs 6 and 7 of the application for transposition filed by the respondent nos.3 to 6 before the Slum Tribunal and would submit that the survey number mentioned by the respondent nos.3 to 6 in the said application and the subject matter of notification declaring the plot as slum rehabilitation area are different. He submits that one of the applicant who had applied for transposition along with respondent nos. 3 to 6 had withdrawn her application. The order of impleadment of respondent nos.3 to 6 passed by this court by consent of the petitioner would not create any right in favour of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 to seek transposition as appellants. There is no commonality of interest, locus or entitlement of the respondent nos.3 to 6 with the locus, interest or entitlement of the original appellants.

24. In my view, even if the respondent nos.3 to 6 were aggrieved by the said notification dated 18 th September, 2010, the appeal ought to have been filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 6 within 30 days from the date of such notification. The appeal of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 having become barred by limitation prescribed under section 3C (2) of the Slum Act, the respondent nos.3 to 6 could not have applied for their transposition as appellants before the Slum Tribunal.

25. A perusal of record further indicates that though the notification was issued on 18th September, 2010, the respondent nos. 3 to 6 applied for impleadment itself for the first time on 6th February, 2017 i.e. more than 6 years after publication of the said notification dated 18th September, 2010. In my view though the petitioner consented for impleadment of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 as the party respondents in the said Appeal No.4 of 2012, that order would not create any right in favour of the respondent nos.3 to 6 to seek transposition as the appellants. It is not in dispute that the original appellants prayed for withdrawal of the said Appeal No.4 of 2012 wp1139-19.doc before the Slum Tribunal. In my view, in view of the withdrawal of the said Appeal No.4 of 2012 filed by the original appellants, the said appeal proceedings came to an end. The respondent nos.3 to 6 could have filed an independent appeal if they were so aggrieved by the said notification dated 18th September, 2010 within the time prescribed under the Slum Act. What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. The respondent nos.3 to 6 could not have indirectly applied for their transposition as appellants so as to overcome the difficulty of limitation faced by them in filing independent and separate appeal.

31. This Court in case of M/s.Maooli Land Developers & Ors. vs. Shri Taukir Ahmed Mohammed Hanif Khan & Ors., (2015) 3 Bom.C.R. 466 has considered the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) and also Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has held that for identity of cause of action or identity of interest has to be considered qua the defendants in the suit and that there is some dispute between the plaintiffs and the applicants would not be considered while considering the identify of cause of action. It is held that spirit of Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shows that the applicant (defendant applying to be transposed as plaintiff) has a substantial question to be wp1139-19.doc decided as against any of the remaining defendants. Though Courts lean against multiplicity of suits and, therefore, this provision of transposition is made only to avoid another suit, Courts would not, however, permit such transposition just to give a chance to a litigant to avoid filing a suit or permit him to take advantage of the suit filed by his adversary against him claiming a relief against him by becoming a plaintiff and trying to bring out the averments and reliefs which are contrary to those claimed by the original plaintiff. This Court has held that the normal consideration for transposition is that interest of the person to be transposed as the plaintiff must be identical to the interest of the plaintiff who tries to withdraw, would not go away. In my view the principles laid down by this Court in case of M/s.Maooli Land Developers & Ors. (supra) would apply to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said said judgment.