SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Mad) 162

S.SWAMIKKANNU
C. Dhandayutham – Appellant
Versus
M. Natarajan and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.Srinivasan, for R.Vedantham, for Petitioner.
S.Selvaratnam, for Respondent.

Judgment :-

The second plaintiff in O.S.No. 239 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Palani, is the petitioner herein. I.A.No.1054 of 1983 in O.S.No.239 of 1981 was filed under Order 23, Rule 1-A and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the second plaintiff for transposing him as a defendant in the suit. Order 23, Rule 1-A Civil Procedure Code which was inserted by the Amending Act 104 of 1976 reads as follows:

"Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1 and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order 1 the Court shall, in Considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the application has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants."

A careful reading of the above provision shows that it is only the defendant who can transpose himself as plaintiff. But in the instant case, the revision petitioner prays for his transposition as defendant in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 1054 of 1983 the second defendant has stated that O.S.No.239 of 1981 had been filed originally by him and the first plaintiff, against the first defendant who is a


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top