Back
Goa High Court
C. M. RAO
Francisco Xavier Antonio Nazare - Appellant
Versus
Sylvia Angela Alvares - Respondent
Decided On : 02/24/1971
Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. - Transposition of Defendant as Plaintiff - The court has the power to transpose a defendant as a plaintiff at any stage of the suit to settle all questions involved and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but it should not create a clash between the plaintiffs. The court's decision should be in accordance with law and just, considering the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a defendant in a suit, filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. to be transposed as a plaintiff, contending that any order in the suit would affect the rights of all parties to a partition deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition could not be granted at the stage of the suit as it was not clear whether the petitioner was accepting the allegations in the plaint. The court stated that if necessary, the petitioner and other pro forma defendants could be transposed as plaintiffs after the written statement was filed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be transposed as a plaintiff at the stage of the suit, considering the allegations in the plaint and the potential clash between the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while it has the power to transpose a defendant as a plaintiff at any stage of the suit, it should avoid creating a clash between the plaintiffs and ensure that the decision is in accordance with law and just, based on the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was in accordance with law, just, and proper, and that if necessary, the petitioner and other pro forma defendants could be transposed as plaintiffs.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court has the authority to transpose a defendant as a plaintiff at any stage of the suit to resolve all questions involved and prevent multiplicity of proceedings [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
However, such transposition should be done cautiously to avoid creating conflicts between plaintiffs and to ensure that the decision aligns with legal principles and is just, considering the specific circumstances of the case [judgement_subject].
In this case, the petitioner, a defendant, sought to be transposed as a plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that any order in the suit would impact the rights of all parties involved in a partition deed (!) [16000002080001].
The court held that the petition could not be granted at the current stage because it was unclear whether the petitioner accepted the allegations in the plaint. It suggested that the petitioner and other pro forma defendants could be transposed as plaintiffs after the written statement was filed [16000002080002].
The court emphasized that while it has the power to transpose parties at any stage, it must ensure that such action does not cause conflicts between plaintiffs and that the decision is lawful and equitable [judgement_subject].
The order of the lower court was upheld, affirming that the petitioner’s request was premature at this stage and that the appropriate time for transposition would be after the written statement, if necessary [16000002080002].
The court dismissed the revision petition, concluding that the lower court’s decision was lawful, just, and appropriate based on the circumstances, and that the petitioner’s argument did not establish a legal basis to alter the order [16000002080003][16000002080004].
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case, please let me know.
2. The respondents herein had filed suit against the petitioner and five others for declaration that the partition deed dated 28-5-1968 executed by the plaintiffs, petitioner and five others was null and void and was not binding on them and for some other ancillary reliefs. Before filing the written statement the petitioner herein who was the second defendant in the suit, filed petition under O. 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. contending that he was impleaded as a pro forma defendant, that any order passed in the suit would affect the rights of each and every party to the partition deed in question, that even according to the plaintiffs he was a party to the said partition deed and that he, his wife and all the persons who were impleaded as pro forma defendants were fit to be transposed as plaintiffs. That petition was opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs. One of the grounds stated by them was that it was not known whether the petitioner, second defendant, was accepting in toto the allegations contained in the plaint. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties passed the order under revision. He held that as it was not clear whether the petitioner herein was accepting the plaint allegations, the petition could not be granted at the stage at which the suit was and that after the written statement was filed, if necessary, the petitioner and the other pro forma defendants could be transposed as plaintiffs.
3. It is argued on behalf of the revision petitioner that the order of the learned Civil Judge is against law, that at any stage of the suit a defendant can be transposed as a plaintiff and that the petition filed by the revision petitioner should have been allowed. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner relied on the decisions in 'Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeshwar Prasad', AIR 1931 PC 162; 'R. S. Maddanappa v. Chandramma,' AIR 1965 SC 1812; and 'Bhismadev Taria v. Radhakrishnan Agarwalla', AIR 1968 Orissa 230.
4. The point for determination is whether there is any force in the contention of the revision petitioner.
5. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner on inquiry by this Court stated that his client had not stated in the trial court that he was accepting the plaint allegations. Undoubtedly the court has power to transpose a defendant as a plaintiff at any stage of the suit to enable it to settle completely all the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but till it appears that by transposing a defendant as a plaintiff it would not be creating a clash between the plaintiffs inter se, it should not direct to transpose a defendant as a plaintiff. The rulings cited on behalf of the revision petitioner do not in any way help him. In the first ruling the pro forma defendants had asked that a decree should be passed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. In the second ruling the first defendant had admitted the title of the plaintiff to half share in the properties and had claimed a decree also in her favour to the extent of the remaining half share in the properties. In the third ruling the transposition was allowed on the application of the original plaintiff and the defendants 6 to 11 were transposed as plaintiffs. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge is in accordance with law, just and proper in view of the circumstances of the case. It is clear from it that if necessity arises the learned Judge is going to issue orders to transpose the petitioner and other pro forma defendants as plaintiffs. There is no force in the contention of the revision petitioner. The petition is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
