Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Tapan Kumar Pandit – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties to appellate proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's jurisdiction on transposition of parties (Para 5 , 9) |
| 3. disagreement on representation and interests in appeal (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. procedural rights under order 1 rule 10 and relevance of parties (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. justification for late objection to litigation approach (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's allowance of petitioner's inclusion as appellant (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. T.K. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and Mr. Soumya Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 4 to 12.
2. Respondent No.11, who is the LR of original Respondent No.9, filed a petition before the first appellate court invoking the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. with a prayer to add him as one of the Appellants along with the existing Appellants. Said prayer of Respondent No.11 having been rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-1) by the learned Additional District Judge, Champua in RFA No.335/139/66 of 1983-2022, the same is the subject matter of challenge in
A party can be added or transposed in an appeal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC if it is necessary to protect their substantial rights, ensuring effective adjudication without causing harm to existing part....
Transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff under CPC requires the original plaintiff to withdraw or abandon the suit, ensuring no multiplicity of proceedings.
Transposition of parties in legal proceedings requires shared interest; allegations of fraud can be considered within same proceedings to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Transposition application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC rejected at belated stage post-written statement and evidence closure due to lack of diligence, inconsistent adversarial stand, and suspected ex....
The appeal abated upon the death of the sole appellant, and transposition provisions are not applicable when the original appellant has not challenged prior orders.
Local amendment to Order 1 Rule 10 empowers courts to transpose defendants as plaintiffs at any stage; Order 23 Rule 1A limited to withdrawal/adjustment of suits, inapplicable otherwise.
The appellate court must independently assess evidence and cannot place the burden of proof on the defendant when the plaintiff fails to establish his claim.
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 seekin....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
