Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: - C.M.No.13049-CII of 2011

Requests for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P2 to P5 and for placing on record the same.

The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

C.R.No.319 of 2007

2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 2.9.2003 and 24.8.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Moga, vide which application filed by respondents no.2 and 3 -defendants no.9 and 10 for impleading them as co-defendants was allowed and thereafter on another application, they were ordered to be transposed as co-plaintiffs.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court.

4. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff-Joginder Pal Jain to the effect that he is lessee in possession of plot in dispute on the basis of registered Lease Deed dated 22.8.1994 and in the alternative, relief of possession as lessee of the property is also claimed.

5. It has been averred that United Church of Northern India Trust Association, i.e., defendant no.1, was recorded as owner in possession of the suit property, which was leased out for 99 years vide Registered Lease Deed dated 9.5.1990 in favour of one Shri K.B.Joel. After death of Shri K.B.Joel, he was succeeded by defendants no.4 to 8 being his sons, daughters and widow. Defendants no.4 to 8 vide registered lease deed dated 22.8.1994 leased out the suit property in favour of plaintiff for a period of 80 years. The said lease deed was also duly registered and hence, plaintiff became lessee in possession of the property in dispute. Petitioners-defendants no.2 and 3 alleged to be owners of the property in dispute on the plea that the same was given to them by one William Bansi Lal Mattoo as General Attorney of defendant no.1 and hence, even if their contention is taken to be correct, their status is that of only licencee and having no right to interfere in possession of plaintiff. During pendency of the suit, the property in dispute was sold to respondents no.2 and 3-defendants no.9 and 10 by virtue of registered sale deed by defendant no.l and hence on their application, they were impleaded as defendants in the suit. Later on, the present application has been filed by respondents no.2 and 3-defendants no.9 and 10 for transposing them as co-plaintiffs on the ground that they are having no dispute with the plaintiff and rather plaintiff as well as they are having dispute with present petitioners‘-defendants no.2 and 3.

6. The application was not contested by respondent-plaintiff. The same was only contested by present petitioners on the plea that lease deed and the sale deed are null and void and in fact they have become owners of the same by way of compromise in a civil suit filed by them in pursuance of which an agreement to sell was executed in their favour by William Bansi Lal Mattoo, General Attorney of defendant no.1.

7. The said application was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order and respondents no.2 and 3-defendants no.9 and 10 were permitted to be transposed as co-plaintiffs.

8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants no.2 and 3 that a defendant can be transposed as a plaintiff only if suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff, as per Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). On the point he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in Abraham v. Antony Mathew, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 522.

9. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3-defendants no.9 and 10 that as they are having no dispute with plaintiff and as their interest is common and only disp