The main legal point established is that a party must be a necessary and proper party for transposition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, and the court's power to exempt payment of court fees is limited by the relevant provisions of the CPC and Court Fees Act.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

Facts:

1. The appellant challenges an order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2017 requiring him to pay the requisite court fees and dismissing his application for transposition of the second respondent, as plaintiff in the suit.

2. The appellant is a lawyer who has taken to writing and has published books. He is a resident of Unit 1, Ground Floor, Plot No. 156, Gagan Vihar Extension, Delhi 110051 (hereinafter “Unit 1”). He separated from his family on 05.05.2006. He says that after separation, in 2007 he was allocated the property which now constitutes Unit 1 by metes and bounds. According to the appellant, Gagan Vihar Extension, where Unit 1 is situated, is an unauthorized colony, as it is partly on public land, and has been granted a provisional regularization certification by the Government of NCT of Delhi by the order dated 04.09.2012.

3. On 03.06.2014 the appellant applied for electricity connection for the Unit 1 premises from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (hereafter “Yamuna Power”). Yamuna Power inspected the premises, and ultimately rejected the application stating, “Original title deed of the property, along with NOC from other party to memorandum of family settlement required.” The appellant contended that because the Gagan Vihar extension was an unauthorised colony in the process of regularisation, no title deeds have yet been issued. He, therefore, prepared an indemnity bond in favour of Yamuna Power and filed it with several other documents, including inter-alia, an affidavit in reference to the original partition decree, affidavits by his grandfather, father and mother in reference to the partition of the property, and several identification documents.

4. The appellant alleged that Yamuna Power regularly provides electricity connections on the signing of an indemnity bond. He also asserts that there is no legal requirement to prove title to secure an electricity connection. Denial of electricity connection, claims the appellant is an attack on his reputation amounting to defamation; thus he filed a suit. He insists that he will donate the damages received from this suit to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (hereafter “DHCLSC”) and has impleaded the DHCLSC as a defendant/respondent. Claiming that such impleadment (as defendant) was erroneous, he sought to have the DHCLSC transposed from a co-defendant, to a co-plaintiff. Additionally, upon filing a suit for defamation, the learned Single Judge was willing to issue summons to Yamuna Power, upon the payment of the requisite court fees amounting Rs. 8,78,324/-. The appellant requested an exemption from the payment of such fees.

5. The learned Single Judge denied the plaintiff/appellant’s request to transpose the DHCLSC from defendant to co-plaintiff (IA No. 14585/2017) and also denied the request for exemption of court fees (IA No. 14298/2017), directing him to pay the court fees within four weeks. The appellant is aggrieved by that order.

6. The appellant contends that under the Civil Procedure Code (hereafter “CPC”) Order I Rule 10(2), a party may file an application to transpose a defendant as a plaintiff, and that the learned Single Judge was wrong to hold that the DHCLSC was not a necessary and proper party to the suit. It is argued that because the appellant intends to donate any damages recovered from Yamuna Power in the defamation suit to the DHCLSC, the DHCLSC has a substantial interest in the matter.

7. On the contention regarding an exemption of court fees, it is argued that under Section 151 of the CPC, the court is empowered to pass any order in the interests of justice, including an order exempting a party from paying the necessary court fees.

Decision and Analysis

8. On the issue of transposing DHCLSC as co-plaintiff, undoubtedly, under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court has the power, either on application of either party, or suo motu, to modify the parties to the suit. However, this power is qualified by the wording of