Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Once it is seen that the contingency for a defendant to seek transposition as a plaintiff has arisen, then it is to be seen under what circumstances, such transposition could be ordered. The circumstances under which such transposition could be ordered is clearly spelt out in the second limb of the Rule, which directs the Court to have due regard to the question "whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants".

11. Thus, a plain reading of Order 23 Rule 1-A C.P.C. shows that the defendant is entitled to seek transposition as a plaintiff, if he has a substantial question to be decided as against the other defendants.

13. In Vasantha Ammal v. V.P. Dhanaraj and Ors. 1990 1 L.W. 209, a Division Bench of this Court considered the discretionary powers of a Court to order transposition. In paragraph 3 of its judgment, the Division Bench held as follows:

3. On the question of transposition of parties, the powers of Court, are wide enough to confer a discretion on it to transpose the necessary and proper party, if that is required for an effective and a comprehensive adjudication of the controversy in the lis. The use of the discretion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. This discretion is not an unbridled one, but is circumscribed by two broad limitations. One is, where rights valuable have accrued to the other side. The other is, where there is a lack of bona fides on the part of the party seeking transposition, in that he has no plausible case to agitate, having a genuine interest in the lis. In these circumstances, the Court will fetter its hands and will not exercise its discretion. But, the question, as already noted, has to be decided depending on the facts of each case and by bare recapitulation of the principles, the court should not abdicate its discretionary power for ordering transposition, when, in fact, that application needs to be countenanced in the interests of justice and on the facts of the case.

14. From a perusal of the Rule and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following tests appear to hold the field, in deciding the right of a defendant to transpose himself as a plaintiff:

(a) Whether the defendant who seeks transposition has substantial question to be decided?.
(b) Whether such substantial question has to be decided against any of the other defendants?
(c) Whether the defendant seeking transposition has an identity of interest along with the plaintiff as against other 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.