(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 27.04.2026, passed in IA No.1298 of 2025 in COS No.1 of 2023 on the file of Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore and thus render justice.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA No.1298 of 2025 in COS No.1 of 2023, dated 27.04.2026, on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/2nd plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, to transpose the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs as 8th and 9th defendants in the suit, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents.

3. This Court carefully considered the materials available on record and this Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

4. The suit was instituted by plaintiffs 1 to 3 for protection of trade mark which is an asset of a Partnership Firm, against the defendants with a grievance that they are using a deceptively similar mark. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings, dispute arose between the plaintiffs inter se and as a result, arbitration proceedings were initiated and at which point of time, plaintiffs 1 and 3 sought for dissolution of the partnership Firm.

5. The plaint that was filed in the present suit in COS.No.1 of 2023, came to be rejected and two appeals were filed as against the said order – Appeal CAD No.21 of 2023 by the petitioner herein and Appeal CAD No.23 of 2023 by the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs, before this Court. The appeal that was filed by plaintiffs 1 and 3 was withdrawn and ultimately the appeal was prosecuted only by the petitioner/2nd plaintiff which was allowed by the Division Bench by an order dated 10.10.2025.

6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner/2nd plaintiff moved an application in IA.No.1298 of 2025, under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, to transpose plaintiffs 1 and 3 as defendants 8 and 9. This application was purportedly filed since according to the petitioner, the plaintiffs 1 and 3 were acting against the interest of the Firm which possessed the trade mark as an asset and continuing plaintiffs 1 and 3 in that status, will adversely affect the interest of the Firm and its registered mark.

7. The Court below by an order dated 27.4.2026, dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs 1 and 3 cannot be transposed and aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court.

8. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.9.2026, this Court after hearing both sides, passed the following order:

                   This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

                   2.The petitioner, who is the 2nd plaintiff in the suit, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., to transpose the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs as the 8th and 9th defendants in this suit. Apart from all the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the grounds projected was that the plaint was rejected earlier in this suit and as against the same, the 2nd plaintiff filed Appeal (CAD) No.21 of 2023 before this Court. The 1st and 3rd plaintiffs also filed Appeal (CAD) No.23 of 2023 and midway they withdrew this appeal on 09.12.2024 and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the 2nd plaintiff came to be allowed on 10.10.2025. Hence, if the 2nd plaintiff had not prosecuted the appeal before this Court, the commercial suit itself would have come to an end in view of the withdrawal of the appeal by the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs.

                   3.Even though, the learned counsel for the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs submitted that the appeal was withdrawn, since the 2nd plaintiff had already filed an appeal, the order of dismissal on 09.11.2024 does not reflect any such reasoning and no reasons have been assigned for withdrawing the appeal.

                   4.This Court therefore questioned the attitude of the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs, who by the act of withdrawal of the appeal were not showing any interest in prosecuting the case.

                   5.The learned counsel for the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs seeks for some time to answer the above query posed by this Court.

                   6.Post this case under the caption ‘Part Heard Cases’ on 17.09.2026.

9. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that even before the Division Bench when the appeal was pending, it was recorded as follows:

                   6. From the perusal of the plaint, the case as pleaded by the plaintiffs is evident that the defendants 4 to 6 incorporated the seventh defendant company under the name of “Aum Valli Vilas”, thereby violating the registered trademark of the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendants 1 to 3. It is also specifically avered that the defendants 4 to 6 are all close family members of the defendants 1 to 3 and the relationship of the defendants 4 to 6 with the defendants 1 to 3 is also specifically avered in the plaint. Thus, from the overall reading of the plaint, it is evident that the relief that is sought by the plaintiffs is mainly against the respondents 4 to 7. Further, it is also evident from the plaint that the plaintiffs have specifically avered that they have no objection to array the defendants 1 to 3 as plaintiffs in the suit as they are also equally bound to protect and safeguard the registered trademark “Sri Valli Vilas”.

10. The learned counsel submitted that if plaintiffs 1 and 3 are transposed as defendants and if ultimately they want to safeguard the registered trade mark of the Firm, they cannot even file a counter claim since a counter claim will not lie as between co-defendants. Hence, the learned counsel supported the order passed by the Court below.

11. The crux of the issue that is involved in the present case pertains to the protection of the registered trade mark of the partnership Firm against the use of the deceptively similar mark by the defendants and more particularly the 7th defendant. The plaintiffs 1 and 3 are taking a stand before the Court that they are equally responsible to protect and safeguard the registered trade mark of the Firm since it is an asset of the partnership Firm. Hence on considering the rival claims, this is not a fit case where the plaintiffs 1 and 3 can be transposed as defendants in the suit. However, if plaintiffs 1 and 3 are going to embarrass or delay the trial of the suit in the light of their dispute with the 2nd plaintiff, the Court below is vested with sufficient power under Order I Rule 2 of CPC.

12. A careful reading of Order I Rule 2 of CPC, makes it clear that if a suit brought by several plaintiffs in respect of the same transaction may embarrass or delay the trial on account of the causes of action being distinct, the Court can ask the plaintiffs as to which one of them should proceed with the suit or in the alternative can order for separate trial. Thus, the grievance expressed by the 2nd plaintiff as against plaintiffs 1 and 3 can be certainly handled by the Trial Court by resorting to Order I Rule 2 of CPC. This safeguard will sufficiently take care of the interest of the 2nd plaintiff as well as the plaintiffs 1 and 3 in this suit.

13. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered by this Court and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.