RATANLAL Vs. MEHATARIN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions are directed against the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit Nos. 81-A/06, 78-A/06, 84-A/06, 85-A/06, 79-A/06 & 80-A/06 whereby the application of the Petitioner, who has been arrayed as Defendant in the above suits, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') for transposition of his name from the category of Defendant to Plaintiff No. 4, has been rejected. Since the common question of law is involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their description before the Court below).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts necessary for the purposes of these petitions are that the Plaintiffs filed the above civil suits for possession and damages with the pleading that the Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 to 14 are descendents and legal heirs of deceased Ramdayal. They are joint owners of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1141/5, area 1.052 hectare situated in Shankar Nagar, Raipur. One Rakesh Pandey claiming himself to be the general power of attorney holder of Defendants No. 2 to 14 and late Sangilal executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 of each civil suit. Sangilal, husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and father of Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3, died in the year 1994 and he never executed any power of attorney in favour of anybody including said Rakesh Pandey. Even if any power of attorney has been executed by late Sangilal, after his death the same becomes void and ineffective. The purchasers have obtained possession on the basis of above deeds.

(3.) THE Petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code and submitted that there is no conflict of interests between the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 2 to 14. Since there is no conflict of interest, he cannot set up counterclaim and therefore, his name should be transposed from the category of Defendant to Plaintiff No. 4 so that he could properly prosecute the suit as Plaintiff.