In a partition suit, the status of plaintiff or defendant is insignificant as each party can claim partition of their share, and the rejection of a transposition application does not affect the right to seek partition.

O. P. GARG, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the order dated 5. 9. 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Chitrakoot. allowing the Revision Application No. 36 of 1999 whereby the order dated 29. 9. 2000 passed by the trial court in Suit No. 10 of 1990 has been challenged.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri K. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-Radhey Shyam who happens to be defendant No. 3 in the original suit as well as Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

( 3 ) SUIT No. 10 of 1990 was instituted by respondent No. 3 Ayodhya for the relief of partition of his l/4th share in the disputed property. It was alleged that the property in question was purchased jointly by Ram Adhar and Gaya Prasad. Radhey Shyam alias Radhey Lal-petitioner, and Jogesh the present respondent No. 6 are the sons of Ram Adhar while plaintiff-respondent no. 3-Ayodhya and Bhola Prasad-respondent No. 4 are the sons of Gaya Prasad. The suit was ordered to proceed ex parte against the defendant No. 4-Jogesh (presently respondent No. 6 who is real brother of the present petitioner ). Jogesh was later on allowed to file the written statement and the order to proceed the case ex parte against him was recalled. Thereupon, the present petitioner-defendant moved an application under Section 88ka for transposition of his brother jogesh-defendant No. 4 as co-plaintiff on the ground that his interest is identical to that of the plaintiff-respondent No. 3. This application for transposition was allowed by the trial court on 29. 9. 1999. Against this order, the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed a Revision Application No. 36 of 1999 which has been allowed and the application moved by the present petitioner for transposition was rejected. It is in these circumstances that the defendant No. 3 has come before this Court as petitioner to challenge the order rejecting his application for transposition of his brother Jogesh defendant No. 4 as co-plaintiff.

( 4 ) SRI K. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the application for transposition could not be rejected by the revisional court and he committed a grave illegality in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. In support of his contention, Sri Misra placed reliance on the decision of the Privy Council in Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeshwar Prasad Bhakat and others, AIR 1931 PC 162, in which the provision of Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C. came to be considered. It was held that the course of adding proforma defendants as co-plaintiffs should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This decision, which has been followed subsequently in a number of cases lays down a general principle that with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, a proforma defendant may be transposed as the co-plaintiff. Another decision referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is R. S. Moddanappa v. Chandramma and another. AIR 1965 SC 1812. In that case, the transposition of the defendant as co-plaintiff in a suit for partition was sought. The Courts below failed to do so. It was held that the technical defect stood cured by Section 99, C. P. C. in view of the fact that the defence raised by the other defendants was fully considered. In the said case, the plaintiffs suit was for partition of the suit properties on the ground that they were inherited jointly by her and by the first defendant and she claimed possession over the property falling in her share from the other defendant who were wrongfully in possession of the property. She also alleged that the first defendant did not cooperate in the matter and so she had to institute the suit. The first defendant throughout admitted the plaintiffs title over half share in the properties and claimed a decree in her favour to the extent of remaining half share in the properties. It was observed that the first defendant could