| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 680
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : C.R.P No. 1373 of 2025 & C.M.P. No. 8135 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR |
| Parties : R.S. Venkatesan & Another Versus Dr. K. Subash & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: N. Umapathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R17, R18 & R21, R. Vigneswaran, Government Advocate (CS), R19, J. Daniel, Government Advocate, R4 to R17, M. Pugazhendhi, R1, M/s. B. Kumarasamy, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 07-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 (1) LW 495,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Order XXIII Rule 1‑A of CPC
- Order I Rule 10 of CPC
- CPC (Civil Procedure Code)
2. Catch Words:
- Transposition of defendants as plaintiffs
- Injunction
- Declaration
- Civil Revision Petition
3. Summary:
The petitioners filed a civil revision under Article 227 to set aside the trial court’s order dismissing their application to be transposed as plaintiffs in a suit concerning “B” schedule property. They argued that, as members of the first respondent society, they should be allowed to protect its interests. The court examined Order XXIII Rule 1‑A of the CPC, which permits transposition only when the original plaintiff withdraws or abandons the suit and the defendant shows a substantial question against other defendants. The petitioners’ affidavit made no allegation of withdrawal or abandonment by the original plaintiffs, nor did it demonstrate a substantial question. Consequently, the essential condition of Order XXIII Rule 1‑A was not satisfied. The court found no error in the trial court’s dismissal and directed the trial court to expedite disposal of the original suit, without awarding costs.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and Final order passed in IA No.2 of 2023 in OS No.71/2009 dated 21.09.2024 on the file of Subordinate Court, Udumalpet.)
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants 19 & 21 seeking to transpose them as party plaintiffs in the suit.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 and deceased Kandapiraan and Krishnasamy filed a suit seeking declaration of 1st defendant society's title over the suit “B” Schedule Property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 14 from creating any cloud over the title of suit “B” schedule property. The plaintiffs also sought for various declarations regarding the invalidity of compromise agreement dated 12-11-2006, sale agreement dated 12-11-2006, various sale deeds etc., The plaintiffs also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 16 and 17 from issuing NOC with regard to ‘B’ schedule property. They also sought for injunction restraining the 18th defendant from issuing approval for the layout in suit ‘B’ schedule property. Subsequently, the petitioners were impleaded as defendants 19 and 21 in the suit. Now, the instant application has been filed by the petitioners seeking their transposition as plaintiffs in the suit. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are members of the first respondent Society and in order to protect the interest of the first respondent society, the petitioners shall be transposed as plaintiffs.
3. Order XXIII Rule 1-A of CPC says under what circumstances a defendant can be transposed as a plaintiff. The same reads as follows.
“1A. When transposition of defendants as plaintiffs may be permitted.
Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under rule 10 of Order I the Court shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants”.
4. A close perusal of the above provision would make it clear that where a plaintiff withdraws or abandons the suit claim, the defendant is entitled to apply for his transposition as plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for transposition, the petitioners have not stated anything about the plaintiffs in the suit. It is not the case of the petitioners in their affidavit that the plaintiffs want to withdraw the suit or abandon the suit claim. In such circumstances, the petitioners have not satisfied the essential ingredient of Order 23 Rule 1-A of CPC. Hence, they are not entitled to seek their transposition as a plaintiff in the suit. In view of the same, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed.
5. Taking into consideration the suit was of the year 2009, this Court is inclined to direct the trial court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
| |
