IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 951 of 2019 GANESH DUTTA PARAHA AND OTHERS Versus SHRI RADHA KRISHNAJI MAHARAJ (THE DEITY) AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Anshul Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner No.1 & 2.

Shri Avnish Khatri - P.L. for the respondents / State.

Shri S.S. Rathore - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-

9 passed by the trial Court dated 22.01.2019 whereby the trial Court has rejected application for transposition of defendant No.1 as plaintiff No.4. The application was filed by the other defendants by some of the other defendants for transposition of defendant No. 1 as plaintiff No.4 on the ground that defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs have common interest and therefore defendant No.1 will be transposed as plaintiff No.4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that if some of the defendants have common interest with the plaintiff, then they can be transposed as defendant and therefore the defendant No.1 does not need to be in the array of defendants of the suit and he needs to be arrayed as a plaintiff as he has common interest with the other plaintiffs.

3. Upon considering the aforesaid assertion, it is seen that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction seeking the relief that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 7 be declared not binding on the plaintiff which is the Deity and the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants No.8 to 15 by late Rambaboo Malviya be also declared null and void as against the Deity and injunction be issued against the defendants No.2 to 15. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that no relief is sought against the defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs have common interest with the defendant No. 1 and therefore the defendant No.1 be transposed as plaintiff No.4.

4. It is settled in law that transposition can be carried out either under Order 1 Rule 10(2) or under Order 23 Rule 1A CPC which are as under:-

"10(2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

1A.When transposition of defendants as plaintiffs may be permitted.—Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under rule 1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under rule 10 of Order I the Court shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants."

5. Transposition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC can be made when it appears to the Court to just to order that the name of any party improperly joined as plaintiff or defendant be struck out or a person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the questions involved in the suit be added as party in appropriate character. As per Order 23 Rule 1-A, where the suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff and defendant applies to be transposed as plaintiff then the Court can transpose the defendant as plaintiff.

6. Reliance was placed on Judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, Karnal, 1986 SCC OnLine P&H 2