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 seeking amendment of pleadings but was to respond to contradictions between the original stand of the respondents and the compromise petition.

JUDGMENT :

(Through Video Conference)

1. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ganderbal (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which, the learned trial court has disposed of the following four applications :

(i) Application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) by the petitioners seeking transposition of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4as party plaintiffs in a suit.

(ii) Application filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of the objections filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the application filed by the petitioners for filing additional written statement or in the alternative transposing them i.e. respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein as party plaintiffs in the suit.

(iii) Application filed by the petitioners in terms of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code seeking leave to file additional written statement.

(iv) Compromise petition between the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein with further prayer to decree the suit in terms of Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 of the Code filed by the respondents.

2. The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that the same is bad in law as initially the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had denied the claim of the petitioner No. 1 through their respective written statements, but later on respondent Nos. 2 to 6 retracted their earlier stand and entered into a compromise with respondent No. 1 and, as such, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 joined hands with respondent No. 1 to get a collusive decree and such practice is always discouraged by the civil jurisprudence. The petitioners have further assailed the order that they had every right to file additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code, particularly when the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had retracted from their earlier pleadings and had joined hands with respondent No. 1 and the real controversy with the parties was with regard to the validity of the impugned sale deeds and same could have determined only after the parties were afforded proper opportunity to plead their written version and lead evidence in the trial court. The learned trial court by refusing the petitioners to file additional written statement has resulted into denial of substantial justice to the petitioners as any compromise between some parties cannot be permitted to affect the right of third party or stranger to the compromise but the learned trial court has totally ignored this vital aspect of the case. The respondents having struck a compromise to obtain a collusive decree against the petitioners and same fact was brought to the notice of the trial court and the petitioners had made it clear that they are having clash of interest with the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (co-defendants in the suit) and they are required to be construed as plaintiffs by applying principle of transposition.

3. Before appreciating rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have a brief resume of the pleadings of the parties before the trial court. The respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deeds executed on 18.03.2014 and registered in favour of the petitioners herein by respondent No. 2 and predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 with regard to land measuring 08 kanals (04 kanals each) under khasra No. 352 khewat No.29, Khata No.80 situated at Mouza Sonamarg Tehsil, Kangan, Ganderbal, Kashmir as null and void with a further declaration declaring the respondent No. 1 to be legal and lawful owner in possession of the land mentioned above and also decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners and the other defendants ( respondents 2 to 6) in the suit from causing any kind of interference into the peaceful possession and the enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 2 and his father, who was originally arrayed