9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to orders allowing restoration of suit for partition and transposition of defendant as plaintiff. 2. Interpretation of O. XXIII R. 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding transposition of defendants as plaintiffs. 3. Application of O. IX R. 9 of the CPC for restoration of the suit. 4. Consideration of substantial questions in a suit for partition. 5. Definition of abandonment in legal context and its application to the case. 6. Possibility of restoration of suit under O. XXIII R. 1-A and S. 151 of the CPC. 7. Transposition of parties with rival interests in the suit. Analysis: 1. The revision petitioners challenged the orders allowing the restoration of the suit for partition and the transposition of the 6th defendant as a plaintiff. The respondents relied on O. XXIII R. 1-A of the CPC, arguing that a defendant can be transposed as a plaintiff after the plaintiff abandons the case. The revision petitioners contended that O. XXIII R. 1-A cannot be invoked post-suit disposal and that O. IX R. 9 of the CPC does not apply for suit restoration. 2. O. XXIII R. 1-A of the CPC permits the transposition of defendants as plaintiffs when a plaintiff abandons a suit. The court must consider if there is a substantial question to be decided against other defendants. The timing of the application is crucial, as seen in this case where the suit was dismissed on the same day the application was filed, making the abandonment significant despite the suit's disposal. 3. While a plaintiff can abandon a suit at any stage, if substantial questions remain, transposition of defendants as plaintiffs can be allowed to pursue the suit. In a partition suit, all parties involved, whether plaintiff or defendant, have an interest in the partition relief. Allowing transposition avoids unnecessary delays and expenses, especially when a party has already incurred costs for separate allotment. 4. The concept of abandonment was debated, with the court clarifying that abandonment can occur through positive submission or silence leading to lapse. Here, stating "not pressed" amounted to abandonment, making O. XXIII R. 1-A applicable. Abandonment does not require the plaintiff's failure to appear in court; it can result from various actions or inactions. 5. The court highlighted that technicalities should not hinder the restoration of a suit under O. XXIII R. 1-A. Even if the suit is considered not alive, if restoration is essential for realizing rights under the provision, the court can order restoration under S. 151 of the CPC. The rights of the petitioners should not be defeated by technical arguments. 6. The court decided to transpose the 6th defendant as a plaintiff and the plaintiffs who abandoned the suit as defendants to align with the new developments and conflicting interests. The suit was restored, allowing necessary amendments to the plaint and giving the original plaintiffs turned defendants the right to contest the suit if they choose to do so. The judgment allowed the prayer in I.A. 3993/97 with modifications to ensure fair proceedings for all parties involved.
|
