MADHAVI AMMA Vs. SAILAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant in a suit for petition is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The order under challenge is one by which the court below has allowed the application of the 20th defendant to get herself transposed as an additional plaintiff. The allegation in the petition is that the plaintiff is not conducting the suit properly and therefore it has become necessary for the petitioner (20th defendant) to get herself transposed as an additional plaintiff. It is relevant in this context to remember that the 20th defendant has no case that the plaintiff has either withdrawn the suit or completely given up the same as to mean that he has abandoned it.

(3.) O.23 R.1(A) governs transposition of defendants as plaintiffs. This rule provides that where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under R.1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under R.10 of O.1, the court shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants. The conditions that should be satisfied in order to invoke this provision are: (1) the applicant must be a defendant, (2) the plaintiff must have either withdrawn or abandoned the ' suit under sub-rule 1 (of O.23), (3) the applicant defendant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants.