plaintiff in the suit.
The respondent No.2, however, opposed the application for
transposition.
N.S. Kamble page 5 of 12
::: Uploaded ... learned Trial Judge by the impugned order, has
rejected the application for transposition mainly on the following
two grounds:-
(i) That the suit is part
respondent No.2.
Heard on I.A. No.5611/2017, an application for transposition
of respondent No.2 as appellant No.2.
The facts necessary ... aforesaid I.A., filed on 05.09.2017, leave is sought
for transposition.
The application has been opposed by respondent No.1 by filing
reply thereto
adjudication of the dispute involved. On
receipt of copy of the application for transposition of the respondent nos.4 to
12, the plaintiff while filed ... this Court finds
the application for transposition was based on the following plea:
Paragraphs-5, 6 and 7 of the application under Order 1, Rule
office report)
with
CRL. M.P. No. 8538 of 2017
(application for transposition of Respondent No. 2 as Petitioner
No.3)
Date : 08/05/2017 ... application for transposition of
Respondent No. 2 as Petitioner No.3 is rejected.
The transfer petition is disposed of in terms of the signed
order
PARTHASARATHY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SANTHALAKSHMI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR APPLICATION FOR TRANSPOSITION ON IA 1/2016)
Date : 04-09-2017 This matter was called ... other represented respondents before Court should be transposed as
petitioners.
The application for transposition of proforma respondent Nos.
5 and 6 as petitioners is, accordingly
respondent as the
case may be, is entitled to file an application for transposition for
transposing himself as the plaintiff or the appellant ... considered view that whatever
it be once an application for transposition is allowed, it will not be
necessary to set aside the order declaring
defendants had not contested the said suit.
A third application was taken out for transposition of two of
the plaintiffs to the category of defendants ... that he will not urge anything against the dismissal of the
transposition application as the same was rightly rejected. However,
he submits that the other
Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Application for Transposition (CLMA 13417/2015)
With
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA 13416/2015 ... appellant/applicant.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for the respondents.
With
Application for Transposition (CLMA 13419/2015)
With
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA 13418/2015)
In
Appeal
suit as plaintiffs. Such application was allowed.
Subsequently, the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 made an application for transposition of the
present petitioner from ... category of plaintiff to defendants.
Although the application for transposition was allowed on February 13, 2015, on which
date the right of the transposed defendant
they have also filed their written statement. At this stage, the application for transposition has been filed. The said application was dismissed by the learned ... parties are not changed in a suit for partition on transposition, the application filed by the defendants is unnecessary and the same has rightly been
