A co defendant entitled to seek transposition as plaintiff, when original plaintiff withdraw suit or abandoned claim.
Citation
CDJ 2019 SC 272
R.Dhanasundari vs A.N.Umakanth and others
Head Note
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Claim for Transposition – Entitlement to Relief – This appeal is directed against judgment and order, whereby High Court has upheld order as passed in suit allowing application filed by defendant Nos. 3 to 6 for transposing them as plaintiffs, after existing plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw suit.
Court held – when plaintiffs entered into arrangement with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and sought permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, right of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to continue with litigation on their claim against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 immediately sprang up and they were, obviously, entitled to seek transposition as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC – Right of the said defendant No. 3 to challenge sale deed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 did not get annulled only by his earlier transposition as defendant; and he cannot be considered bound by arrangement between existing plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 – Trial Court had been justified in allowing prayer for transposition and High Court has rightly declined to interfere – Appeal dismissed.
(Paras: 12, 13)
Comparative Citations:
2019 (2) ALT 241, 2020 (2) MWN(Civil) 490, 2019 (196) ALLINDCAS 13, 2019 (134) ALLLR 696, 2019 (1) ARC 852, 2019 (2) BLJ 331, 2019 (3) CalHN 1, 2019 (2) CLJ 24, 2019 (3) CivCC 452, 2019 (2) ICivC 854, 2019 (2) JBCJ 93, 2019 (2) JLJR 147, 2020 (2) LW 396, 2019 (2) Pat LJR 158, 2019 (2) RCR(Civil) 326, 2019 (144) RD 404, 2019 (4) Scale 161, 2019 (9) SCJ 70, 2019 (3) SLT 459, 2019 (3) Supreme 682,
Court held – when plaintiffs entered into arrangement with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and sought permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, right of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to continue with litigation on their claim against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 immediately sprang up and they were, obviously, entitled to seek transposition as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC – Right of the said defendant No. 3 to challenge sale deed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 did not get annulled only by his earlier transposition as defendant; and he cannot be considered bound by arrangement between existing plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 – Trial Court had been justified in allowing prayer for transposition and High Court has rightly declined to interfere – Appeal dismissed.
(Paras: 12, 13)
Comparative Citations:
2019 (2) ALT 241, 2020 (2) MWN(Civil) 490, 2019 (196) ALLINDCAS 13, 2019 (134) ALLLR 696, 2019 (1) ARC 852, 2019 (2) BLJ 331, 2019 (3) CalHN 1, 2019 (2) CLJ 24, 2019 (3) CivCC 452, 2019 (2) ICivC 854, 2019 (2) JBCJ 93, 2019 (2) JLJR 147, 2020 (2) LW 396, 2019 (2) Pat LJR 158, 2019 (2) RCR(Civil) 326, 2019 (144) RD 404, 2019 (4) Scale 161, 2019 (9) SCJ 70, 2019 (3) SLT 459, 2019 (3) Supreme 682,
Comments
Post a Comment