Transposition cannot be permitted if the nature of the suit is altered, and the defendant has to remain within the parameter of the suit as instituted.

1. The petitioner, who is one of the defendant of Title Suit No.128 of 1996, has filed this writ application for setting aside the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by Subordinate Judge-VII, Ara in Title Suit No.128 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.1 was ordered to be transposed as plaintiff and the plaintiff (State of Bihar) was ordered to be transposed in the category of defendants.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. The fact, in brief, is that the State of Bihar filed the aforesaid suit against this petitioner and others for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land. The respondent no.1 intervened into the matter and he was impleaded as defendant 4th party. He filed a written statement and also a counter claim. The plaintiff (State of Bihar) filed petition on 24.11.2008 under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. for withdrawal of aforesaid Title Suit No.128 of 1996. The intervener defendant (respondent no.1) filed petition on 09.01.2009 under Order 23 Rule 1A and 151 of C.P.C. for his transposition to the category of plaintiff of Title Suit No.128 of 1996. The petitioner also filed objection against the petition of respondent no.1. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the withdrawal petition as per order dated 13.08.2009 and rejected the petition filed by respondent no.1 for transposing him as plaintiff. The respondent no.1 filed civil revision against the said order which was converted into civil writ bearing C.W.J.C. No.18805 of 2010. The said writ application after hearing was allowed on 09.05.2011. Thereafter this petitioner filed Civil Review No.299 of 2011 for recalling the said order. After hearing both the sides, civil review application was allowed on 16.11.2011 and C.W.J.C. No.18805 of 2010 was fixed for fresh hearing. The said writ was disposed of on 22.08.2012 and the matter was remanded to the court below with an observation for fresh hearing on the point of transposition and deciding as to whether any substantial question of law is involved amongst the defendant inter-se. The learned court below as per the impugned order allowed the petition and transposed the respondent no.1 and the State of Bihar vice versa.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1 has no right to get him transposed in the category of plaintiff. The suit was filed by the State of Bihar for declaration of their title. The respondent no.1 claimed title on the basis of his own pleading which is against the pleading of State of Bihar. The intervener defendant cannot get any relief on the pleading of the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar had filed the suit for declaration of their title with respect to the land measuring 6 acres 42 decimals of Plot No.1671 under Khata No.532 of village Pakri, Ara Town which was in khas possession of Dumraon Maharaj. The petitioner claims the said land along with other plots as their settled land by virtue of registered lease deed dated 02.06.1942 in favour of their ancestor. The family of petitioner was in possession over the said land and during revisional survey operation the name of the petitioner as well as other persons who purchased the land were recorded and survey khatian was accordingly prepared. A land acquisition case bearing Case No.03 of 1982-83 was initiated with respect to Plot No.1671 in dispute. The petitioner filed a writ bearing C.W.J.C. No.3203 of 1993 challenging the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding which was subsequently dropped. Thereafter the State of Bihar filed present Title Suit No.128 of 1996 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced copy of order passed in C.W.J.C. No.4148 of 1988, C.W.J.C. No.3203 of 1993, C.W.J.C. No.5456 of 2006, C.W.J.C. No.1321 of 2011 and C.W.J.C. No.18652 of 2011 to show that in the aforesaid writs, the State of Bihar lost the case and this petitioner was held to be owner of the said land on the basis of regis