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.

11. On 4th June, 2018, the Slum Tribunal allowed the application filed by the original appellants for withdrawal and allowed the transposition application filed by the respondent nos.3 to 6 and directed the respondent nos.3 to 6 herein to carry out the amendment within a fortnight. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 20th December, 2018 to the extent the same allowing the miscellaneous application of the respondent nos.3 to 6 for their transposition as the appellants.

12. Dr.Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to some of the annexures to the writ petition including the application for transposition made by the respondent nos. 3 to 6, the impugned order passed by the tribunal on the said application, various orders passed by this court in the earlier writ petition and also to the affidavit filed by his client before the tribunal opposing the application for transposition made by the respondent nos. 2 to 6.

28. In my view, the cause of action claimed by the respondent nos.3 to 6 in the application for transposition was totally different to the cause of action which arose in the appeal preferred by the original appellants and thus on this ground itself, the Slum Tribunal could not have entertained the said application for transposition made by the respondent nos.3 to 6.

29. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeswari (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.3 to 6 is concerned, in the said judgment some of the plaintiffs were transposed as the defendant nos.3 to 6 and the suit had remained essentially against the defendant nos.1 and 2 that is the challenge to the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2. It is held by the Supreme Court that in regard to that cause, even if plaintiff nos.5 and 9 to 11 came to be transposed as defendant nos.3 to 6, their claim against defendant nos.1 and 2 did not come to an end ; rather, the interest of the existing plaintiffs as also the defendant nos.3 to 6 had been one and the same as against the defendant nos.1 and 2. The facts before the Supreme Court in the said judgment were totally different and are distinguishable in the facts of this case. The said judgment would not assist the case of the respondent nos.3 to 6.