IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. Rath, J.
Minati Behera - Appellant
Vs.
Namita Behera - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1259 of 2018
Decided On : 10-07-2019
Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC - Transposition of Defendant as Plaintiff - Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC - Gopal @ Gopal Chandra Ojha v. Ramakanta Ojha, 2016 (1) CLR 639 - Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and others, (2001) AIR SC 2552 - The court discussed the application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and its limitations, citing the case of Gopal @ Gopal Chandra Ojha v. Ramakanta Ojha, and clarified the distinction between Rule 3 and 4 and Rule 10 under Order 22. The court held that the application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is not maintainable when the suit has abated and is no longer pending.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for declaration of a registered sale deed as void, partition of property, and permanent injunction. After the plaintiff's death, defendant no.2 filed an application to be transposed as plaintiff, which was rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is not maintainable when the suit has abated and is no longer pending.
Issues: The main issue was whether defendant no.2 could be transposed as plaintiff after the suit had abated due to the plaintiff's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the limitations of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and cited relevant case law to support its decision, emphasizing that the application for transposition is not maintainable when the suit has abated.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in C.S (I) No.372 of 2015 whereby and whereunder learned trial court has rejected the application of defendant no.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to transpose her as plaintiff.
2. One Nishamani Behera has instituted the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 17.5.2018 executed by her son Mohan in favour of defendant no.1 is void, partition of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction.
3. Case of the plaintiff was that Madhusudan Behera was the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. He died in the year 1993 leaving behind his wife, plaintiff and son Mohan. Mohan died in the year 2014 leaving behind his widow Minati-defendant no.2 and two sons, defendants 3 and 4 and daughter-defendant no.5. The suit property originally recorded in the name of Madhusudan. After death of Madhusudan, the suit property was mutated in the name of plaintiff and Mohan in Mutation Case No.687 of 2002. While matter stood thus, Mohan alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.2008. The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant nos.2 to 5. Mohan had no exclusive title over the same. He had no right to alienate the same in favour of defendant no.1.
4. While the matter stood thus, plaintiff died on 6.2.2017. On 16.5.2017, defendant no.2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for transposition as plaintiff. Defendant no.1 filed an objection. Learned trial court rejected the petition holding that the suit has abated by operation of law and as such, the petition is not maintainable.
5. Mr. Deba Ranjan Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Nisamani is the mother-in-law of defendant no.1 and grand children of defendants 2 to 5. All the legal heirs are already on record. After death of plaintiff, the right to sue survives. Though an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was filed for transposition, but then the same can be construed to be an application under Order 22 Rule 2 and 3 CPC. Learned trial court ought to have allowed the application. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Musammat Hifsa Khatoon and others v. Mohammad Salimar Rahman and others, (1959) AIR Patna 254.
6. Per contra, Ms. Soumya Sucharita Deo, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submitted that the sole plaintiff died during pendency of the suit. The suit abated. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for transposition does not arise. She further submitted that the daughter of defendant no.1-opposite party no.1 instituted C.S. No.580 of 2018 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack wherein defendants 2 to 4 are parties.
7. The seminal question that hinges for consideration as to whether defendant no.2 can be transposed as plaintiff, when the suit has abated.
8. The Court may transpose the defendant as plaintiff in exercise of its power under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 C.P.C. The same is quoted hereunder:-
9. In Gopal @ Gopal Chandra Ojha v. Ramakanta Ojha, 2016 (1) CLR 639, this Court held :
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.