R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI versus A.N. UMAKANTH & ORS.

R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI versus A.N. UMAKANTH & ORS.

Where existing plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, a pro forma defendant who has an interest in the subject-matter and a substantial question to be adjudicated against a co-defendant is entitled to be transposed as plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC;...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeswari; Respondent: A.N. Umakanth; Original Plaintiff (deceased): A.C. Nataraja Mudaliar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 12.10.2006 in C.r.p. (pd) No. 10 of 2006
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Order I Rule 10, Order XXIII Rule 1, Order XXIII Rule 1 a, Transposition of Parties, Withdrawal of Suit
Civil Procedure Order I Rule 10 Order XXIII Rule 1 Order XXIII Rule 1 a Transposition of Parties Withdrawal of Suit

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeswari

Appellant

A.N. Umakanth

Respondent

A.C. Nataraja Mudaliar

Original Plaintiff (deceased)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 12.10.2006 in C.r.p. (pd) No. 10 of 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants (subsequent purchasers and a legal representative) can be transposed as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC when existing plaintiffs seek to withdraw the suit
  2. 2 Whether subsequent purchasers pendente lite have a substantial question to be adjudicated against co-defendants so as to justify transposition
  3. 3 Whether the dominus litis plaintiffs' right to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 can be curtailed by transposition requests

Ratio Decidendi

Where existing plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, a pro forma defendant who has an interest in the subject-matter and a substantial question to be adjudicated against a co-defendant is entitled to be transposed as plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC; on the facts the Trial Court and High Court rightly allowed transposition of defendant Nos.3 to 6 and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court dated 12.10.2006 upholding the Trial Court order dated 07.07.2005 is maintained
  • Order dated 07.07.2005 allowing transposition of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC is upheld