Tarun Agarwala, J.:-

Heard Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Garg and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The plaintiff respondent no. 6 filed a suit for injunction praying that the de­fendant nos. 1 to 5 should be restrained from interfering in the joint possession of respondent no.6 and the proforma defend­ant no. 7. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sold his share of the property to defendant nos. 1to 5 and, thereafter, filed an application for withdrawal of the suit. The proforma defendants nos.6 and 1 namely, the peti­tioners filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1-A read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. praying that the said defendants may be transposed as plaintiffs and may also be permitted to continue with the suit. The application of the plaintiff was allowed and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn and the application of the petitioners for transposition as plaintiff was rejected. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said or­der, has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the peti­tioners submitted that admittedly the prop­erty was ancestral and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document