Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(f) After the commencement of the trial and the examination of PW-1, DW-1 and DW-2 and in the course of cross examination of DW-3, the plaintiffs filed a memo seeking to withdraw the suit as settled out of court. Though the original defendants 1 and 2 did not resist the said attempt of the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit, the defendants 3 to 6 (who got transposed from the position of plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11) filed objections to the memo for withdrawal of the suit.
(g) Simultaneously, the defendants 3 to 6 also filed an application in I.A. No. 153 of 2005 under Order 23, Rule 1-A read with Order 1, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transposing them as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit. By an order dated 7-7-2005 the trial court allowed the application for transposition and it is against the said order that the 2nd defendant in the suit has filed the above civil revision petition.
Rule 1-A. Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order 1, the Court, shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants.

9. The aforesaid Rule was inserted by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977. The said Rule was inserted in order to provide for the circumstances where the defendant may be allowed to transpose as a plaintiff, where the suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff. The statement of objects and reasons for the said amendment makes it clear that the defendant may be allowed to be transposed as a plaintiff where either the suit is withdrawn or it is abandoned by the plaintiff. In the present case, the suit is sought to be withdrawn by the plaintiff and hence the contingency for the defendant to seek transposition as a plaintiff has arisen.

12. In Nagoor Gani alias Rajamani and Ors. v. Gandhi Meenal and Ors. 1988 (2) MLJ 171, a learned Judge of this Court considered the scope of Order 23 Rule 1-A C.P.C. and held in paragraph 12 of his judgment as follows:

This new rule has been enacted in order to enable a defendant, who has identical interest, from being denied his interest if he rested on the success of the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit. Before a defendant could invoke this provision, it must be shown that the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or abandon his claim under Rule 1 of Order 23, C.P.C. It is a condition precedent to enable a defendant to get himself transposed. The principle that follows this rule is that there must be identity of interest between the plaintiff and such a defendant who wants to transpose as a plaintiff. It must be a suit where the defendant is entitled to succeed automatically on the success of the plaintiff in the suit. Such a defendant is usually called as a proforma defendant. To put it in other words, both the parties are projecting the same claim against the other defendants, and therefore, the success of one is the success of the other. In such cases, the law comes to the rescue of such a defendant so that the plaintiff, who is having a similar right, cannot defeat the rights of the defendant by colluding with the other contesting defendants.
(d) Whether the success of the plaintiff would result in the automatic success of the defendant who seeks transposition?
(e) Whether the withdrawal or abandonment by the plaintiff, of the suit, results in some vested right of the defendant getting defeated?

The above tests are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

15. Applying the above tests, it is seen in this case that the defendants 3 to 6 who seek to transpose themselves as plaintiffs, were originally arrayed as plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11. On the ground that the 5th plaintiff (now the 3rd defendant) acted against the interest of the other plaintiffs (his own brothers and sisters) in selling the suit property to the defendants 4 to 6, the plaintiffs got them originally transposed as defendants 3 to 6 in I.A. No. 468 of 2003. In other words, the present defendants 3 to 6 were originally plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11. Though the defendants 4 to 6 are subsequent purchasers, pendente lite, they had a substantial issue to be adjudicated as against the defendants 1 and 2, when they were plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11. By virtue of their transposition as defendants 3 to 6, in the year 2003, they cannot be stated to have lost their rights to have the same question question adjudicated as against the defendants 1 and 2. As a matter of fact, the 3rd defendant's right to prosecute the suit as a plaintiff, flowed out of his status as one of the legal heirs of the original sole plaintiff A.C. Nataraj Mudaliar. Therefore, his right to seek the relief prayed for in the suit filed, by his father did not get annulled by his transposition as the third defendant in the year 2003.