Transposition of defendant as a plaintiff is permissible only if a defendant has a substantial question to be decided as against other defendants.

(Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.153 of 2005 in O.S.No.219 of 2004 dated 7.7.2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Chingleput.)

The civil revision arises out of an order passed by the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, allowing an application filed by defendants 3 to 6 for transposing them as plaintiffs in the suit, in the wake of an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit.

2. In view of the fact that the scope of the dispute involved in the revision is limited, I have taken up the civil revision petition itself for final disposal, with the consent of all the parties, though only the petition for stay was posted for hearing today.

3. I heard Mrs. Uma Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Devendran, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent. The other respondents have not chosen to enter appearance, despite service of notice on them.

4. The facts leading to the present revision, as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties before the trial court are as follows:-

(a) One A.C.Nataraja Mudaliar originally instituted a suit in O.S.No.122 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu against two persons by name A.V.Manoharan (1st defendant) and Tmt. R.Dhanasundari @ R.Rajeswari (2nd defendant). The prayer in the suit was for cancellation of the sale deed dated 23-3-1985 executed and registered by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. The contention of the plaintiff in the suit was that the suit schedule property and other properties were purchased in the names of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and also in the name of a firm of which both were partners; that the said firm was dissolved by a deed dated 12-5-1971 under which the assets and liabilities of the firm were taken over by the plaintiff; that in pursuance of the said deed of dissolution the suit schedule property vested with the plaintiff; and that while so, the 1st defendant sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant under a sale deed dated 23-3-1985 as though he is the absolute owner thereof.

(b) After the filing of the suit, the sole plaintiff A.C.Nataraja Mudaliar died leaving behind him surviving 3 sons and 4 daughters as his legal heirs. All of them were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 8 in the suit. In order to facilitate easy contest, all the sons and daughters of the deceased sole plaintiff gave a Power of Attorney in favour of one of the sons by name A.N.Umakanth and left the matter to him to prosecute the suit.

(c) In the course of the proceedings, making use of the deed of power of Attorney, the Power Agent A.N.Umakanth sold a part of the property to 3 persons by name Ramasamy, Dhanam Ramasamy and Venkatasubramanian in the year 1995 and also got them impleaded as co-plaintiffs 9 to 11 in the suit in I.A.No.135 of 2002. The Power Agent A.N.Umakanth himself was the 5th plaintiff in the Suit.

(d) On coming to know of this, the other plaintiffs (legal heirs of the original sole plaintiff) revoked the power of attorney and got the Power agent A.N Umakanth (5th plaintiff in the suit) and his purchasers (plaintiffs 9 to 11) transposed as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit in I.A.No.468 of 2003.

(e) Thus the contest in the suit which started of with just 2 parties to the proceedings, became multilateral and multi pronged. The suit was also transferred to the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu and renumbered as O.S.No.219 of 2004.

(f) After the commencement of the trial and the examination of PW-1, DW-1 and DW-2 and in the course of cross examination of DW-3, the plaintiffs filed a memo seeking to withdraw the suit as settled out of court. Though the original defendants 1 and 2 did not resist the said attempt of the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit, the defendants 3 to 6 (who got transposed from the position of plaintiffs 5 and 9