Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil suit originally filed in 1989 by A.C. Nataraja Mudaliar against A.V. Manoharan (defendant No.1) and R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeshwari (defendant No.2, appellant) for cancellation of a sale deed dated 23.03.1985 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The original plaintiff died, and his legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 8. One of the sons, A.N. Umakanth (plaintiff No.5), held a power of attorney and sold the suit property to three persons (Ramasamy, Dhanam Ramasamy, Venkatasubramanian) via a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1995. These purchasers were impleaded as plaintiffs 9 to 11. Later, the other plaintiffs revoked the power of attorney and got plaintiff No.5 and plaintiffs 9 to 11 transposed as defendants 3 to 6. The suit was transferred and renumbered as O.S. No. 219 of 2004. During trial, when cross-examination of a defence witness was pending, the plaintiffs filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the suit, claiming settlement with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 objected and filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC to be transposed as plaintiffs. The Trial Court allowed the application, observing that the defendants had an interest in the outcome, a fresh suit would be barred by limitation, and the withdrawal was not consented to by all defendants. The High Court upheld this order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendants had an identity of interest with the plaintiffs and were entitled to be transposed to continue the suit. The court emphasized that the right of the plaintiff to withdraw is not absolute when other parties have a substantial interest, and the transposition was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do complete justice.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transposition of Parties - Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC - Subsequent Purchasers Pendente Lite - The defendants, who were originally plaintiffs and were transposed as defendants due to conflict of interest, sought transposition as plaintiffs when the existing plaintiffs sought withdrawal of the suit. The court held that such defendants have an identity of interest with the plaintiffs and can be transposed to continue the suit, as they would otherwise be left without remedy and a fresh suit would be barred by limitation. (Paras 7-10) B) Civil Procedure - Right of Dominus Litis - Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC - Withdrawal of Suit - The right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit is not absolute when other parties have a substantial interest in the outcome. The court may permit transposition of defendants as plaintiffs to protect their rights, especially when the withdrawal is not consented to by all defendants and the suit is at an advanced stage. (Paras 7-10) C) Civil Procedure - Identity of Interest - Order I Rule 10 CPC - The court found that the defendants seeking transposition had an identity of interest with the plaintiffs as they were subsequent purchasers pendente lite and would benefit from a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, they were entitled to be transposed as plaintiffs to pursue the suit. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether defendants who were originally plaintiffs and were transposed as defendants can be transposed back as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC when the existing plaintiffs seek to withdraw the suit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, allowing the transposition of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC to continue the suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
Law Points
- Transposition of parties
- Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Right of dominus litis
- Subsequent purchasers pendente lite
- Identity of interest
