A party cannot be transposed in proceedings without proving their claim in law; however, the wrong citation of provisions does not invalidate a court's jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief.

ORDER :

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the 33^rd respondent in I.A.No.521 of 2004 in O.S.No.289 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.

2. One Meenachi Achi, minor Revathi, Kanagambigai Achi and Umadevi Achi have filed O.S.No.510 of 1970 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai for the relief of partition and separate possession. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 30.04.1977. A final decree application came to be filed in I.A.No.342 of 1988. When the final decree application was pending, the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Melur and was renumbered as O.S.No.289 of 2004. The final decree application was renumbered as I.A.No.521 of 2004.

3. While the final decree application was pending, the 11^th defendant has passed away and the present revision petitioner was impleaded as the 33^rd respondent in the final decree proceedings as legal heir of the deceased 11^th defendant.

4. The 1^st plaintiff viz., Meenachi Achi is said to have passed away on 29.09.2006. The 33^rd respondent in the final decree proceedings claims that the said Meenachi Achi has executed a registered Will on 13.04.2005 bequeathing her share in his favour. Based upon the above said averments, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.117 of 2007 in the final decree application to record himself as legal heir of the deceased Meenachi Achi. Since the respondents in the said application had not filed their counter, the application came to be allowed on 28.08.2007 recognizing the present revision petitioner as the legal heir of Meenachi Achi.

5. The revision petitioner herein had thereafter filed I.A.No.49 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (herein after referred to as “CPC”) to transpose himself as the second petitioner in the final decree proceedings and to delete petitioners 2 to 4 in the said final decree proceedings. However, pending I.A.No.49 of 2008, the revision petitioner has filed a memo giving up his prayer to delete petitioners 2 to 4 from the final decree proceedings and restricted his prayer to transpose himself as one of the petitioners in the final decree proceedings.

6. The above said application was resisted by the co-petitioners in the final decree proceedings on the ground that the original Will dated 13.04.2005 has not been produced before the Court and without establishing the Will, the revision petitioner cannot be transposed as one of the petitioners in the final decree proceedings. They further contended that any order passed transposing the revision petitioner as one of the petitioners in the final decree application would confer some legal right upon him to claim the share of Meenachi Achi.

7. The trial Court, after considering the submissions made on either side, had dismissed the application on the ground that the application has been filed quoting wrong provision of law viz., Order I Rule 10 CPC. The trial Court has further held that the original Will dated 13.04.2005 has not been produced. The trial Court has proceeded to hold that even being arrayed as the 33^rd respondent, without being transposing himself as one of the petitioners in the final decree proceedings, the 33^rd respondent would still claim the share of Meenachi Achi on proving the Will dated 13.04.2005 and therefore, there is no necessity to transpose him as one of the petitioners in the final decree application. The trial Court further held that there is no mention in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.49 of 2008 alleging that the other petitioners in the final decree application are attempting to withdraw the same or not going to prosecute the same. On the above said gr