Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2992 2.3. In the said petition, the petitioners had been impleaded vide order dated 16.06.2022 as respondents No.2 and 3.

2.4. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application for transposition as petitioners in Civil Miscellaneous No.130 of 2021, which came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 on the ground that the respondents No.2 and 3 having already appeared and filed objections admitting the claim of the petitioners and denying the claim of respondent No.1, the said application for transposition cannot be considered. 2.5. The trial Court further held that considering the application for transposition would not arise on the ground that the same is a miscellaneous petition. It is challenging the same, petitioners are before this Court.

3.7. By relying on the decision in Maddanappa's case his submission is that the Hon'ble Apex Court in that matter had held that there was a possibility of a defendant seeking for transposition as a plaintiff to agitate the right of the defendant. The defendant not having sought for transposition could not agitate the rights subsequently and it is on that basis he submits that petitioners have erred on caution and have sought for transposition so that no such contention is taken against the petitioners and on this ground, he also submits that the transposition application was required to be allowed.

6. The points that would arise for determination are,

(i) Whether an application for transposition could be filed in a petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the same being numbered as miscellaneous proceedings?

(ii) Whether an application for transposition if filed, the aspect of whether the contentions being barred by limitation would have to be considered at that stage?

9. Answer to Point No.(ii):- Whether an application for transposition if filed, the aspect of whether the contentions being barred by limitation would have to be considered at that stage?

9.1. The contention of Sri Sangram S.Kulkarni learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that the Probate having been granted on 04.02.2017 in P.& S.C. No.17/2014. An application for impleading having been filed in Civil Misc.No.130 of 2021 and the petitioners having come on record as respondents No.2 and 3 vide order dated 16.06.2022. The application for transposition filed on 05.08.2023 in I.A.No.14 is barred by limitation