SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 997

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BHAGWAN MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH SALUJA – Respondent
C.A. No.-003073-003073 - 2026



##PAGE1##

SLP (C) NO. 5450 OF 2026

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026

[@ SLP (C) NO. 5450 OF 2026]

BHAGWAN MISHRA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAMESH SALUJA & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against the

order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the High court by which it has

affirmed the order of the Trial Court dated 29.07.2025 rejecting

the application seeking amendment of the plaint which was filed by

the appellant after his transposition as a plaintiff.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal in the nutshell

are that the original plaintiff has instituted a suit on 20.06.2016

seeking the relief of declaration of title, in which the appellant

was arrayed as defendant no. 1. The original plaintiff passed away

on 25.11.2020. After his death, the appellant filed an application

for his transposition as plaintiff, which was allowed by the Trial

Signature Not Verified

Court by an order dated 29.06.2022.

Digitally signed by

KAPIL TANDON

Date: 2026.02.28

16:11:55 IST

Reaso4n:. Thereafter, the appellant filed a fresh plaint for

1

##PAGE2##

SLP (C) NO. 5450 OF 2026

substituting the plaint filed by the Original Plaintiff. The said

fresh plaint was rejected by the Trial Court by an order dated

17.04.2023 which order was affirmed by the High court on

08.01.2025. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application seeking

amendment of the original plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC

on 09.06.2025. The Trial Court by order dated 29.07.2025 rejected

the said application, which has been affirmed by the High Court by

the order impugned before us.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Before

proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the Order XXIII

Rule 1A and Order I Rule 10 of the CPC which are extracted

hereinbelow for the facility:

Order XXIII Rule IA

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withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under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.

Order I Rule 10

10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.—(1) Where

a suit has been instituted in the name of the

wrong person as plaintiff or where it is

doubtful whether it has been instituted in the

name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at

any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the

suit has been instituted through a bona fide

mistake, and that it is necessary for the

determination of the real matter in dispute so

to do, order any other person to be substituted

or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the

Court thinks just.

2

##PAGE3##

SLP (C) NO. 5450 OF 2026

(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.

(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff

suing without a next friend or as the next

friend of a plaintiff under any disability

without his consent.

(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be

amended.—Where a defendant is added, the plaint

shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be

amended in such manner as may be necessary, and

amended copies of the summons and of the plaint

shall be served on the new defendant and, if

the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant

(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian

Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22,

the proceedings as against any person added as

defendant s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top