Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Namit Kumar, J.
Ashok Alias Babbu – Appellant
Versus
Bahadurgarh Agro Industries (p) Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 1789 of 2019
Decided On : 27-09-2023
Transposition - Civil Suit - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - [Transposition] - [Civil Suit] - [Order 1 Rule 10 CPC] - The court discussed the application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the relevant legal provisions. The court highlighted the conflicting interests of the parties and the absence of commonality of interest, emphasizing the principles of equity and the purpose of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The court also considered the implications of Order 41 Rule 22 and Rule 33 CPC, and the limitations on transposition. The court ultimately dismissed the application for transposition, citing the absence of appeal or cross-objections by the petitioner and other defendants, and directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a civil suit for possession and specific performance of an agreement against the petitioner and other defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. Defendant No.1 filed an appeal, while the other defendants, including the petitioner, did not. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for transposition as co-appellants, which was contested and dismissed by the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interests of the parties were conflicting and there was no commonality of interest, as highlighted by the principles of equity and the purpose of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The court also emphasized the absence of appeal or cross-objections by the petitioner and other defendants, and directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was the application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, considering the conflicting interests of the parties and the absence of commonality of interest. The court also addressed the implications of Order 41 Rule 22 and Rule 33 CPC, and the limitations on transposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the conflicting interests of the parties, the absence of commonality of interest, and the principles of equity and the purpose of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The court also considered the implications of Order 41 Rule 22 and Rule 33 CPC, and the limitations on transposition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for transposition, citing the absence of appeal or cross-objections by the petitioner and other defendants, and directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Namit Kumar, J. - Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 26.02.2019 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, whereby his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for transposing him as co-appellant, has been dismissed.
2. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.
3. The relevant facts of the case required for the adjudication of the present revision petition are that respondent No.1-Bahadur Agro Industries (P) Ltd. filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance and in the alternative suit for recovery and suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-respondent Nos.2 to 13 (hereinafter referred to as defendants) for enforcement of agreement to sell dated 24.07.2006, which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 12.01.2018 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and against the defendants and a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.07.2006 was passed with a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on receipt of the balance sale consideration within two months, failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed through Court. Against the said judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018, defendant No.1, namely, Narender Singh Yadav filed an appeal on 26.02.2018. Other defendants, including the present petitioner did not opt to file any appeal and they were arrayed as performa respondents by the defendant No.1. Thereafter, in the appeal, respondents No.2 to 13 have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for transposing their names in the array of appellants. The said application was contested by the appellant-respondent No.2 Narender Singh Yadav by filing a detailed reply and finally the said application was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, vide order dated 26.02.2019 by recording the following findings:
"7. It is not disputed that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant No.1 and applicants-respondents No.2 to 13 was decreed in favour of the respondentplaintiff and it is only the appellant-defendant No.1 who has filed the present appeal and the applicants/respondents No.2 to 13 have been made proforma respondents who have now made application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for transposing them as coappellants. It is also categorically argued by learned counsel for the applicants-respondents No.2 to 13 that they will not pay the proportionately court fee to the appellant-defendant No.1 which he has affixed. It is also not disputed that the appellant-defendant No.1 is claiming his absolute right in the suit property by excluding the applicants-respondents No.2 to 13.
8. On the other hand, the applicants-respondents No.2 to 13 are claiming that they are owners in possession of the half share of the suit property and appellant/defendant No.1 is only owner in possession of remaining half share.
9. In view of the factual position as claimed by the appellant-defendant No.1 and applicants-respondents No.2 to 13, their interest is not common. Rather totally contrary to each other. Under these circumstances, the applicants-respondents No.2 to 13 cannot claim that their interest is common with appellant-defendant No.1. The law settled in Santosh Gupta, Kiran Tandon and Moji Ram & another (supra) referred to by learned counsel for the applicants-respondents No.2 to 13 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the reported cases, the interest of the applicants-respondents No.2 to 13 with the appellants/plaintiffs of those cases was common, whereas the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar/common to those of that judgments Madaka Anjaneyulu and Bikhari Charan Pothal (Supra) wherein it has been held that if the interest of the parti
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of commonality of interest for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the implications of Order 41 Rule 22 and Rule 33 CPC, and t....
Transposition of parties in legal proceedings requires shared interest; allegations of fraud can be considered within same proceedings to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Transposition as plaintiff – Trial Court has power to allow application for transposition of defendants as plaintiff, under its inherent power saved by Section 151 CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff is permissible only if their interest is identical to that of the plaintiff and they have a substa....
Transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff under CPC requires the original plaintiff to withdraw or abandon the suit, ensuring no multiplicity of proceedings.
The plaintiff has an absolute right to withdraw the suit unconditionally, and the defendant's application for transposition must be permissible under the circumstances. The defendant can raise their ....
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
