The court has the inherent jurisdiction to order transposition of an appellant as respondent and vice-versa in an appeal, but this will be done only in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a bonafide mistake as to the rights, capacity, or status of a party, and when no valuable right has accrued to the adverse party.

1. In the above Letters Patent appeals, applications have been made on behalf of the State through Shri A. D. Singh, Advocate, for transposition of the State as an appellant. This order will dispose of all the applications.

2. It is submitted that the appellants in the above mentioned appeals and the State have identical interests and as such it would be convenient for the State and would also be in the interests of justice to transpose the State, which already figures as a respondent in these appeals, as appellant. These applications have been seriously contested by respondent No. 1 His objections are that these applications are not maintainable, that the appellants and the State have absolutely no identical interests and, therefore, the State cannot be transposed as an appellant. A valuable right has accrued in favour of respondent No. 1 by lapse of time and, therefore, the State cannot be allowed to be transposed as an appellant in the said appeals. It is further averred that there can be complete adjudication of the case even the State figuring as respondent and there can be no question of multiplicity of proceedings. The State has not disputed the impugned order and has not filed any appeal against that. In view of all this it is prayed, that these applications be rejected.

3. Shri N. D. Qureshi, Special Secretary to Government Finance Department, Jammu and Kashmir Government, has sworn a rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the State. In the said affidavit, he has affirmed that the transposition of the State as an appellant is necessary as the appellants have identical interests is with the State and therefore, it will be convenient to dispose of the appeals. The mere fact that the appellate court has stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and has made an order against the State in this regard, does not imply any clash of interests between the appellant and the State.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. At the outset, Shri S. P. Gupta, appearing for respondent No. 1 raised the contention that transposition of the parties can be ordered only under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. That order does not apply to writ proceedings muchless to an appeal against the judgment rendered in writ proceeding. It is submitted that in view of this, the court has got no power to order transposition of the State as appellant in these appeals.

6. I am afraid this contention is not well founded, inasmuch as "the principle underlying Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. is applicable to writ proceedings as well. The High Court while exercising extra-ordinary powers of writ jurisdiction is a court of civil jurisdiction and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code do apply to writ proceedings. In A. I. R. 1968 Gujrat, 202, a Division Bench of that court has laid down the view that the High Court issuing a writ of Certiorari is a court of civil jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 141 C.P.C. and, therefore, the rules engrafted in the Code do apply to writ proceedings in the High Court. Again in A.I.R. 1967 Calcutta, 275. a Division Bench of that court held that Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directly attracted to an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and so such provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as can be suitably applied to writ proceedings are applicable to such proceedings". The above two mentioned cases dealt with the question relating to abatement and substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased party under Order 22 of the Code. It is, therefore, held that "order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. applies to writ proceedings and there is no bar for the court to consider the question of transposition of the respondent as an appellant in an appeal against the judgment rendered in writ petition". The contention advanced is, therefore, over-ruled.

7. The applications of the State seeking transposition as appellants in the appeals however, require to be decided after we take i