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withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.