ORDER

This petition by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.90/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, whereby the application I.A.No.VII filed by respondent Nos.1 to

5/plaintiffs seeking abandonment/withdrawal of their claim and to transpose respondent No.7/defendant No.3 as plaintiff was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.7.

Perused the records.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.6 and 7/defendant Nos.2 and 3 for declaration and permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent No.6/defendant No.2 filed a common written statement, while respondent No.7/defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement. In this context, it is relevant to state that respondent No.7/defendant No.3 supported the claim of the plaintiffs, while the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent No.6/defendant No.2 disputed and contested the claim of the petitioners.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the said respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking transposing of respondent No.7/defendant No.3 as plaintiff and for permission to abandon the claim of original plaintiffs to the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent No.6/defendant No.2. However, the said application was not opposed by respondent No.7/defendant No.3.

5. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier application filed by respondent No.7/defendant No.3 having been dismissed, the question of once-again permitting him to be transposed would not arise in the facts of the instant case and the Trial Court has committed error in allowing the application.

6. It is true that the earlier application I.A.No.III filed by respondent No.7/defendant No.3 seeking transposition has been dismissed by the Trial Court. However, having regard to the undisputed fact that respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs intend to abandon their claim in the suit and respondent No.7/defendant No.3 was supporting the claim of the plaintiffs, the proper course of action would be to transpose the plaintiffs as additional defendants to the suit and to transpose respondent No.7/defendant No.3 as sole plaintiff in the suit and direct the Trial Court to proceed further, in accordance with law.

7. In these circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that while the Trial Court was fully justified in permitting respondent No.7/defendant No.3 to be transposed as plaintiff, the impugned order insofar as it relates to permitting respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs to abandon/withdraw their claim deserves to be modified by directing the plaintiffs to be treated as party defendants in the array of parties to the suit by suitably modifying the impugned order.

8. In the result, the following:

Order

i) Writ petition is disposed of.

ii) The impugned order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, is hereby modified.

iii) I.A.No.VII filed by the plaintiffs stands disposed of by directing respondent No.7/defendant No.3 to be transposed as plaintiff in the suit.

iv) The written statement of respondent No.7/defendant No.3 (transposed plaintiff) shall be considered as plaint in the suit.

vi) The original plaint of the plaintiffs shall be treated as written statement of the plaintiffs, who are hereby directed to be transposed as defendants in the suit.

vii) The written statement of the petitioner and respondent No.6/defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are contesting the suit shall continue to remain as written statement in the suit.

viii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possibl