Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri D V Siddalingappa, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 05.01.2013 passed by the Principal City and Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in Misc. No.556/2012. The impugned order dismissed the petitioner's application (I.A.) filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to transpose respondent Nos.7 and 8 as plaintiffs in the suit. The petitioner was the lifetime treasurer and trustee of the first respondent trust. The suit was filed by the trust and its managing trustee against several defendants, including the petitioner and others, seeking a declaration and injunction. The petitioner contended that respondent Nos.7 and 8, who were defendants in the suit, were actually supporting the plaintiff's case and should be transposed as plaintiffs to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the proposed transposition would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the other defendants. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court had exercised its discretion properly and that the petitioner had no right to insist on transposition. The court observed that the application appeared to be an abuse of the process of law and that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Transposition of Parties - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Discretion of Court - The petitioner sought to transpose two defendants as plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the proposed transposition would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the other defendants. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that the petitioner had no right to insist on transposition as the proposed plaintiffs had not sought to be transposed. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Abuse of Process of Law - Order I Rule 10 CPC - The High Court observed that the application for transposition appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the law and was an abuse of the process of the court. The court noted that the petitioner had not made out any valid ground for transposition and that the trial court's order did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking transposition of respondent Nos.7 and 8 as plaintiffs in the suit.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2013 passed by the Principal City and Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in Misc. No.556/2012 is upheld.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Transposition of parties
- Right to sue
- Cause of action
- Discretion of court
- Abuse of process of law
