PRAKASH KAUR Vs. S MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7th December, 1989 passed by Shri P.D. Jarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi dismissing an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil-Procedure Code, 1908 praying for transposition of plaintiff No. 2 as defendant No. 5.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff along with Ajit Singh had filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts between the partners. According to the petitioner, Shri Ajit Singh was a partner in the partnership although this fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned Sub Judge has disallowed this application mainly on the ground' that Shri Ajit Singh, plaintiff No. 2, has compromised with the defendants-respondants and on 18.11.1988 the order was passed and it was held that it was not necessary to give notice to the other plaintiff because it was a request for the compromise and in the opinion of the court if the plaintiff was 'aggrieved by the withdrawal of Shri Ajit Singh from the suit, he might file fresh suit against him as one of the defendants.

(3.) In the application filed by the petitioner underorder I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the prayer made by the netitioner-plaifttiff No. 1 is that the name of Shri Ajit Singh, plaintiff No. 2 in the plaint, may be struck off and added as defendant No. 5 and the proposed amended plaint appended thereto may be taken on record. It appears the learned trial Court has not considered the proposed amendments as there appears to be no application filed for amendment although amended plaint has been filed. The suit of plaintiff No. 2 already stands compromised and a decree passed in terms thereof and no proceedings have been taken by plaintiff No. 1 for setting aside the said decree. In these facts and circumstances, there can be perhaps some objection for transposing the name of plaintiff No. 2 as defendant No. 5, but there appears to be no objection for impleading him as defendant No. 5 in the suit in case his presence is necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and decide all questions involved in the suit. The application already filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can be treated as an application for impleading original plaintiff No. 2 as defendant No. 5 in the proposed amended plaint instead of transposing him as defendant No. 5.