Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11494 3 MP-951-2019 5 . Transposition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC can be made when it appears to the Court to just to order that the name of any party improperly joined as plaintiff or defendant be struck out or a person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the questions involved in the suit be added as party in appropriate character. As per Order 23 Rule 1-A, where the suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff and defendant applies to be transposed as plaintiff then the Court can transpose the defendant as plaintiff.

6 . Reliance was placed on Judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, Karnal, 1986 SCC OnLine P&H 217, AIR 1986 P&H 402 to contend that defendant No.1 has common interest with the plaintiffs. However, this alone cannot be a relevant factor to order transposition and even in the case decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana relied by the counsel for petitioner, defendant No.1 in that case was held entitled to decree and hence he was transposed as plaintiff to do complete justice between the parties and the defendant himself had prayed that he be transposed as plaintiff.

7 . However, in the present case neither the defendant No.1 is willing to be transposed as plaintiff nor the plaintiffs are willing to get the defendant No.1 transposed as plaintiff No.4. In absence of consent of the concerned parties, transposition cannot be ordered by the Court under Order 23 Rule 1A because it is not the case where the suit has been withdrawn by plaintiff and NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11494 4 MP-951-2019 now defendant wants to be transposed as plaintiff because consent of the defendant is material and abandonment of claim by the plaintiff is the second material reason to order transposition under Order 23 Rule 1A CPC.

12. The present one is clearly a case answering to all the basics for applicability of Rule 1-A of Order 23 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. As noticed, the principal cause in the suit is challenge to the sale deed executed by Defendant 1 in favour of Defendant 2, with the original plaintiff asserting his ownership over the property in question. After the demise of original plaintiff, his sons and daughters came to be joined as Plaintiffs 2 to 8 with Plaintiff 5 being the power-of- attorney holder of all the plaintiffs. After the suit was decreed ex parte, Plaintiff 5 transferred the property in question to the aforesaid three purchasers, who were joined as Plaintiffs 9 to 11 when the ex parte decree was set aside and suit was restored for bi parte hearing. In the given status of parties, even if Plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11 were later on transposed as Defendants 3 to 6, the suit remained essentially against Defendants 1 and 2, that is, in challenge to the sale deed dated 23-3-1985, as executed by Defendant 1 in favour of Defendant 2. In regard to this cause, even if Plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11 came to be transposed as Defendants 3 to 6, their claim NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11494 7 MP-951-2019 against Defendants 1 and 2 did not come to an end; rather, the interest of the existing plaintiffs as also Defendants 3 to 6 had been one and the same as against Defendants 1 and 2."