SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is preferred by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders Annexures P/ 1 and P/ 2 passed by the trial Court and the appelalte Court respectively.

( 2 ) THE facts may be summarised. Plaintiff-Petitioner Mathura Bai had preferred a suit for permanent injunction against the respondens, but later, she sought the withdrawal of the suit and filed an application to that effect submitting that she had bequeathed the proporty to petitioner No. 2, and therefore, did not desire to proceed with the suit any more.

( 3 ) THE respondent had opposed the application. The learned trial Court granted the application and the revision preferred by the respondent was also dismissed. A Misc. Petition was preferred in this Court by the respondent defendant, and at the motion hearing stage, without any notice to the petitioner, on the contentions of the defenat respondent that he too had preferred an application in the suit, but the trial Court without deciding the application had wrongly allowed the suit to be withdrawn, it was observed by this Court that the question before the trial Court was not of withdrawal but of substitution. Indeed, without considering that question, the prayer for withdrawal could not be considered. With the said observation, the earlier petition of the respondent was finally disposed of by this Court with a direction that the learned trial Court shall consider the right of respondent to pray for substitution of the trensafaree in place of the plaintiff and within two weeks such application, if made, was directed to be disposed of in accordance with law.

( 4 ) UNDER the direction of this Court, the matter was sent back to the trial Court and the learned trial Court allowed the applications filed afterwards by the respondent under Order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. C. and under Order 23, Rule 10 read with Section 151, C. P. C. , and therefore, allowed the prayer of the respondent of impleading the petitioner No. 2 as one of the plaintiff. The order of the learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioners in the appeal which was also dismissed.

( 5 ) IT is contended by the petitioner plaintiff that she had not prayed for any substitution, but had prayed only for the withdrawal of the suit, narrating the circumstances under which the withdrawal of the suit was being sought. It is further contended by the petitioners that the respondent had misled this Court. When the trial Court had earlier allowed the application to withdraw the suit, the question was only of withdrawal of the suit. But in this Court when the earlier petition was preferred by tie defendant respondent, the impression to the Court was given that an application for substitution was also moved in the suit, which was pending, and it was urged that, while keeping the application pending, the suit could be permitted to be withdrawn. On such contention, this Court had directed the learned trial Court to reconsider the matter and pass the proper order afresh. This Court had further observed that for a period of two weeks from the order of this Court, the order passed by the learned trial Court shall remain suspended.

( 6 ) WHEN the matter had reached to the trial Court, the respondent had thereafter moved the applications; one under Order 1, Rule 10 and the other under Order 23; Rule 10 of C. P. C. and those were allowed. The appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the order was also dismissed.

( 7 ) IN this Court, the short question, which arises for consideration, is whether, in the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff, against her will, could be compelled on the prayer of respondent No. 1 defendant to proceed with the suit, by transposing petitioner No. 2, who was also unwilling to prosecute the suit as plaintiff. Admittedly, no application was moved by petitioner No. 1/ plaintiff for sub-substituting or adding the name of petitioner No. 2 as plaintiff nor petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document