R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI versus A.N. UMAKANTH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 06-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI
 v.
A.N. UMAKANTH & ORS.
    (Civil Appeal No. 7292 of 2009)
   MARCH 06, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXIII, r.1-A r/w Or. I,
r.10 – Property in question purchased in the name of partnership
firm of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 – Firm dissolved– Property
vested with the plaintiff– Suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation
of the sale deed, executed by defendant no.1, in favour of
defendant no.2-appellant, allegedly despite having relinquished
rights in the suit property – Plaintiff died, his 3 sons and 4
daughters impleaded as plaintiff nos.2 to 8 – Plaintiff no.5-
respondent no.1 given power of attorney by his siblings – Suit
decreed ex-parte – Decree set aside, suit restored – In the
interregnum, plaintiff no.5 sold the suit property to respondent nos.2
to 4, who moved application for being impleaded as plaintiffs –
Allowed, joined the suit as plaintiff nos.9 to 11– Plaintiff nos.2 to 4
& 6 to 8 revoked plaintiff no.5’s power of attorney and moved
application for transposition of plaintiff no.5 and plaintiff nos.9-
11 as defendants – Allowed, plaintiff nos.5 and 9-11 transposed as
defendant nos.3 to 6 – Plaintiffs sought withdrawal of suit –
Objected by defendant nos.3-6 who also filed application u/Or. XXIII,
r.1-A r/w Or. 1, r.10 for transposition as plaintiffs – Allowed – On
appeal, held: Or.1, r.10 provides for addition, deletion and
substitution of parties and the proposition for transposition of a
party from one status to another, by its very nature, inheres in
sub-rule(2) of r.10 of Or. 1– u/Or. XXIII, r.1, plaintiff may seek
permission for withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of
claim– Rule 1-A thereof deals with an eventuality where the
plaintiff withdraws his suit or abandons his claim but a proforma
defendant has a substantial question to be decided against the
co-defendant – Powers of the Court to grant prayer for
transposition are very wide – Principal cause in the suit is
challenge to the sale deed executed by defendant no.1, with the
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 648
   648
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
original plaintiff asserting his ownership over the property– In the
given status of parties, even if plaintiff nos.5 and 9 to 11 were
transposed as defendant nos.3 to 6, their claim against defendant
nos.1 & 2 did not come to an end and the suit remained essentially
against the defendant nos.1 & 2– Interest of the existing plaintiffs
as also the defendant nos.3 to 6 had been one and the same as
against the defendant nos.1 & 2 – When the plaintiffs entered into
an arrangement with defendant nos.1&2 and sought permission to
withdraw the suit, the right of defendant nos.3-6 to continue with
the litigation on their claim against defendant nos.1 & 2
immediately sprang up and they were entitled to seek transposition
as plaintiffs u/Or.XXIII, r.1-A.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. I, r.10 – Object of –
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of this
case, upon the existing plaintiffs seeking permission to withdraw
under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have
rightly been allowed to be transposed as plaintiffs under Order
XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC and to continue
with the suit, as originally filed against the defendant Nos. 1 and
2. The law of procedure relating to the parties to a civil suit is
essentially contained in Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure,
dealing with various aspects concerning joinder, non-joinder and
mis-joinder of parties. Rule 10 of Order I specifically provides
for addition, deletion and substitution of parties; and the
proposition for transposition of a party from one status to another,
by its very nature, inheres in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I
CPC.
On the other hand, the law of procedure in relation to
withdrawal and adjustment of suits is contained in Order XXIII
of Code of Civil Procedure. As per Rule 1 thereof, a plaintiff may
seek permission for withdrawal of suit or abandonment of a part
of claim. Rule 1-A thereof deals with an eventuality where the
plaintiff withdraws his suit or abandons his claim but a pro forma
defendant has a substantial question to be decided against the
co-defendant. The object of Rule 10 of Order I CPC is essentially
to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute
R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI v. A.N

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.