( 1 ) I agree with my brother Ramabhadran that this application should be dismissed with costs.

( 2 ) THE opposite partys application for withdrawal of the suit was opposed by the applicant, who contended before the trial Court that the application be dismissed and that a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts be passed on its paying the Court-fee. The application of the opposite party was a simple application withdrawing the suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. It had the absolute right to withdraw the suit at any time; it did not stand in need of any leave of the Court for withdrawing. The question of the leave of the Court would have arisen only if it had asked for leave to file a fresh suit. The petitioner could not resist the withdrawal of the suit and the Court could not compel the opposite party to continue it. I do not understand what could be the opposite partys "game" in withdrawing the suit even if it had been pending for a long time and the petitioner had incurred considerable expenditure on it; on the suit being withdrawn it was open to the Court to award the petitioner its costs and it did award them and, therefore, no question of its having incurred considerable expenditure on the litigation arose. The mere fact that the suit had been pending for a long time did not at all affect the opposite partys right to withdraw it.

( 3 ) IT is to be noted that the petitioner did not want to be brought over as plaintiff and the opposite party to be brought over as defendant in the suit; what it wanted was a decree for rendition of accounts on its paying the Court-fee, and this relief could not possibly be granted to it. No preliminary decree for rendition of accounts could be passed unless the suit continued, and the suit could not be continued after the opposite party exercised its absolute right of withdrawing it. No payment of court-fee was required, even by the petitioner, for the passing of a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts; the necessary court-fee had been already paid by the opposite party.

( 4 ) EVEN if it be said that the petitioner wanted transposition of the parties, I have no doubt that no such transposition could be allowed by the trial Court. There were only one plaintiff and only one defendant. The moment the opposite party was removed from the array of plaintiffs there remained no plaintiff in the suit and the moment the petitioner was removed from the array of defendants there remained no defendant in the suit and there can never be a suit in which there is no plaintiff or there is no defendant. If there are two or more plaintiffs in a suit it is possible to remove any of them leaving one still in the array of plaintiffs, and, similarly, if there are two or more defendants it is possible to remove one or more of them still leaving at least one defendant in the array, but such a removal is impossible when there is only one person in the array.

( 5 ) THERE is no provision in the C. P. C. , allowing such a transposition of parties as suggested by the petitioner. What is not provided for in the Code can be done by a Court only in exercise of its inherent powers to prevent an abuse of a process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. Neither of the objects is to be served by the suggested transposition of parties. A withdrawal of a suit for rendition of accounts is certainly not an abuse of a process of Court. There is no question of making the petitioner the plaintiff and the opposite party the defendant in the suit for securing the ends of justice, because it was always open to the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of the amount that it claims to be due to it. If the period of limitation for such a suit is still pending it can file a suit even now, and if it has run out, it has to thank itself for letting it run out. The institution of the suit by the opposite party did no justify its not filing a suit on the cause of action accruing in its favour; if i