Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Parkash Chand – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges dismissal of transposition application in suit alleging fraudulent will and gift. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. belated transposition application opposed and rejected for delay after evidence closure. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner claims interest alignment; respondents allege adversarial somersault. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. order 1 rule 10 cpc permits transposition at any stage. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. transposition denied due to seven-year delay and inconsistent written statement. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. petition dismissed; no interference with trial court order. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner herein who is defendant No. 3 in the civil suit, for being transposed as a plaintiff, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent herein plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit land, a
Transposition application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC rejected at belated stage post-written statement and evidence closure due to lack of diligence, inconsistent adversarial stand, and suspected ex....
Local amendment to Order 1 Rule 10 empowers courts to transpose defendants as plaintiffs at any stage; Order 23 Rule 1A limited to withdrawal/adjustment of suits, inapplicable otherwise.
Transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff under CPC requires the original plaintiff to withdraw or abandon the suit, ensuring no multiplicity of proceedings.
Transposition of parties in legal proceedings requires shared interest; allegations of fraud can be considered within same proceedings to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of commonality of interest for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the implications of Order 41 Rule 22 and Rule 33 CPC, and t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff is permissible only if their interest is identical to that of the plaintiff and they have a substa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents could not have been arrayed as plaintiffs in the suit and that the application for additional written statement was not seekin....
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
