2019 (3) TMI 2036 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking permission to withdraw the suit - no cause of action - appellant argued that the transaction concerning defendant Nos. 3 to 6 having taken place much after the institution of the suit, these defendants have no cause of action against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and hence, they cannot be transposed as plaintiffs - HELD THAT - On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, upon the existing plaintiffs seeking permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have rightly been allowed to be transposed as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC and to continue with the suit, as originally filed against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The present one is clearly a case answering to all the basics for applicability of Rule 1-A of Order XXIII read with Rule 10 of Order I CPC. As noticed, the principal cause in the suit is challenge to the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, with the original plaintiff asserting his ownership over the property in question. After the demise of original plaintiff, his sons and daughters came to be joined as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 with plaintiff No. 5 being the power of attorney holder of all the plaintiffs. After the suit was decreed ex parte, the plaintiff No. 5 transferred the property in question to the aforesaid three purchasers, who were joined as plaintiff Nos. 9 to 11 when the ex parte decree was set aside and suit was restored for bi parte hearing. In the given status of parties and the subject matter of the suit, when the plaintiffs entered into an arrangement with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and sought permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, the right of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to continue with the litigation on their claim against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 immediately sprang up and they were, obviously, entitled to seek transposition as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC. It is also noteworthy that even if some question is sought to be raised as regards the rights of the subsequent purchasers (defendant Nos. 4 to 6), the right of the defendant No. 3 (earlier the plaintiff No. 5) to prosecute the suit as a plaintiff remains rather indisputable in view of his status as one of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The right of the said defendant No. 3 (earlier the plaintiff No. 5) to challenge the sale deed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 did not get annulled only by his earlier transposition as the defendant; and he cannot be considered bound by the arrangement between the existing plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In the given set of circumstances, the Trial Court had been justified in allowing the prayer for transposition and the High Court has rightly declined to interfere. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transposition of defendants as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. Right of subsequent purchasers to be transposed as plaintiffs.
3. Withdrawal of the suit by the original plaintiffs and its implications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transposition of defendants as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):

The core issue in this case revolves around the transposition of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 as plaintiffs. The Trial Court allowed this transposition, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the CPC, specifically Order XXIII Rule 1-A and Order I Rule 10. Rule 10 of Order I CPC allows the court to add or strike out parties to ensure complete adjudication of the dispute. Rule 1-A of Order XXIII CPC permits a defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff if the original plaintiff withdraws the suit and the defendant has a substantial question to be decided against a co-defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that the object of these provisions is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure that all parties related to the dispute are present for a comprehensive adjudication.

2. Right of subsequent purchasers to be transposed as plaintiffs:

The subsequent purchasers (defendant Nos. 4 to 6), who were originally plaintiffs 9 to 11, had a substantial interest in the suit property. The original plaintiff's power of attorney holder sold the property to these purchasers, who were then impleaded as plaintiffs. Later, they were transposed as defendants. Despite this transposition, their interest in challenging the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendant No. 2 remained intact. The Supreme Court noted that the right of these subsequent purchasers to seek cancellation of the sale deed did not extinguish merely because they were transposed as defendants. The Court held that they had a substantial question to be adjudicated against the original defendants, justifying their transposition as plaintiffs.

3. Withdrawal of the suit by the original plaintiffs and its implications:

The original plaintiffs sought to withdraw the suit after reaching a settlement with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. However, defendant Nos. 3 to 6 objected to this withdrawal and sought to be transposed as plaintiffs to continue the litigation. The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to allow this transposition, noting that the right of the original plaintiffs to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC does not negate the rights of other parties with a substantial interest in the suit. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Rule 1-A is to ensure that a defendant with a substantial question against a co-defendant can continue the litigation if the original plaintiff withdraws. This provision aims to prevent the defeat of a party's rights and avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court concluded that the transposition of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 as plaintiffs was justified under the provisions of the CPC, given their substantial interest in the suit property and the need for comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural rules in ensuring that all parties with a legitimate interest in a dispute are given the opportunity to have their claims adjudicated, even if the original plaintiffs seek to withdraw.