The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the interests of the contesting parties and the absence of any material irregularity, judicial impropriety, or infraction of law in the Trial Court's order.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APPL. 12517/2023

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures/documents.

2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 418/2023 & CM APPL. 12516/2023 (Stay)

4. The petitioners challenge the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 207601/2016 titled `Kuldeep Singh & Ors vs. Tarbia Education Foundation & Ors.', whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") filed by the petitioners, who were defendants no. 54 to 56 before the learned Trial Court, seeking transposition as plaintiffs, was dismissed.

5. Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, in favour of the petitioners for the reason that the issue raised by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit was common to that of the petitioners/defendants in the suit.

6. Learned counsel submits that another relevant aspect why the impugned order is erroneous is for the reason that plaintiff himself who is dominus litus, also did not have any objection to such transposition. Learned counsel pointed out to certain judgments rendered by High Court of Patna as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in `Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority & Ors.' reported in (2004) 10 SCC 745, to submit that instead of relegating parties to separate suits and thereby causing multiplicity of litigation, in suitable cases, the defendants, if required, may be transposed as plaintiffs.

7. In the present case, learned counsel submits that though the Power of Attorney was indeed executed sometime in the year 2004, however, it was only in the year 2013-14 that the petitioners realised the misuse of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the attorney.

8. Learned counsel also submits that the moment the petitioners were served with the copy of the summons of the suit, even before the written statement was filed, the application seeking transposition was filed. In other words, learned counsel submits that no time was wasted in placing before the Court the fact that the defendants need to be transposed as plaintiff.

9. Per Contra, Mr. Amandeep Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 submits that the question here is not in respect of whether the defendants can be transposed as plaintiffs or not, and whether the plaintiff has or does not have any objection. Learned counsel submits that it is only respondents no. 1 to 3, who are defendants no.1 to 3 before the learned Trial Court, who are the affected parties and who are the only sole and contesting parties whose interests are affected by the outcome of the suit.

10. Learned counsel submits that with the permission of the learned Trial Court, reply to the said application too was filed by the respondents.

11. Learned counsel submits that it was only subsequent to the purchase of the subject suit land that the suits were filed on false and frivolous grounds and the present petitioners being defendants no.54 to 56 also jumped in the fray to put across their false claim. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have already sold their interests long back and had nothing to place before the learned Trial Court either as a defendant or even as a plaintiff.

12. This Court has considered the arguments of the parties as also considered the documents and the impugned order.

13. It would be apposite to extract paragraphs 3 to 5 of the impugned order hereunder:

"3. Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 had submitted that the aforesaid application should be dismissed by this Court because the defendants no.54 to 56 have already sold their share qua the property forming subject matter of the impugned sale deed dated 29.06.2013 to Sh.