Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33110
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J
MRS. JACQUELINE PINTO – Appellant
Versus
FIELD SERVICES AND INTER CULTURAL LEARNING INDIA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.15169 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI
For the Respondents: SRI. K.S. HARISH, S.V. GIRIDHAR, BHANU PRAKASH
The court found that a defendant may be transposed as a plaintiff based on the commonality of claims, regardless of any other pending suits, correcting the trial court's erroneous application of law.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) and (6) - Application for transposition - The petitioner, a defendant, sought transposition to plaintiff status in a suit, supported by plaintiffs, opposing defendants resisted - Trial Court rejected the application citing a separate pending suit by the petitioner, ruling this was erroneous as per relevant provisions. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Legal principles - The right to transpose does not depend on the status of other claims; commonality of claims indicates transposition is appropriate.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a defendant supporting the plaintiffs and sought transposition as their claims aligned. The defendants opposed this but the plaintiffs had no objection.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's reasoning on prior separate suit was found wrong; transposition should have been allowed based on similarity of claims instead of conflict of interest.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could be transposed despite her separate suit pending was the central issue addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the commonality of claims and clarified that prior suits should not affect the right to seek transposition. The trial judge misapplied legal principles regarding transposition related to abandoned claims.
Result: Petition allowed; applicant transposed as plaintiff No.3.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petition and trial court's decision. (Para 2 , 9) |
| 2. analysis of trial court's errors and court's reasoning. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding the application for transposition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. clarification on transposition criteria and its legal grounding. (Para 11 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion allowing the petition. (Para 18) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.3833/2020 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 23.06.2021, whereby the application I.A.X filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 under Order I Rue 10 (2) r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to transpose herself from position/rank/status of defendant No.4 to that of plaintiff No.3 in the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.6 and 7 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit under Section 92 of CPC seeking various reliefs against respondent Nos.1 to 5 – defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6. In the said suit, the petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No.4 having supported the claim and contentions of the plaintiffs filed the instant application – I.A.No.X under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to transpose herself from position/rank/status of defendant No.4 to that of plaintiff No.3 in the suit. The said application was not opposed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 – plaintiffs, who in fact stated that they had no objection for the petitioner – defendant No.4 to be transposed as plaintiff No.3. However, the said application was opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 – defendant Nos.1 to 3, pursuant to which, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court committed a grave and serious error of law and fact in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for transposition as plaintiff No.3 by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and the impugned order deserves to be set aside and I.A.No.X filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:
i) Kiran Tandon Vs Allahabad Development Authority & Anr – (2004) 10 SCC 745
ii) Irapawwa @ Irawwa And Ors. vs Channabasawwa And Ors. – ILR 2004 KAR 5130
iii) Deepak Vs. Arvind and Ors – W.P.No.103466/2018 dated 07.02.2020
iv) Kumudavalli Ammal alias Kuppammal Vs. P.N.Purushottam – AIR 1978 Mad 205
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 – plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 would submit that even before the Trial Court, they had stated that they had no objection for the instant I.A.No.X to be allowed and for the petitioner to be transposed as plaintiff No.3 in the suit along with plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly, they state that even the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside by allowing I.A.No.X filed by the petitioner.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court rejected I.A.No.X on the ground that the petitioner – defendant No.4 had already instituted a separate suit in Closure O.S.No.476/2020 against defendant Nos.1 and 3 and plaintiff No.1 herein for a declaration that the petitioner was a Trustee of the defendant No.1- Trust which was yet to be decided in the said suit which was pending adjudication and as su
