P.SAMSINGH Vs. P.BALASUNDARI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE nutshell facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two Civil Revision Petitions would run thus:

(2.) THE matter has been pending for about a year and a half. While so, the second plaintiff filed an I.A. in I.A.No.27 of 2012 for getting himself transposed as one of the defendants in view of his contention that in a previous litigation, his right over the second item of the suit properties herein was declared by the Court that it is his exclusive property which he got it by family arrangement effected by his deceased father. But that application has been dismissed as against which the present C.R.P.(MD)No.2688 of 2012 was filed. The Lower Court while dismissing the application for transposition, observed that the second plaintiff could file an application for amendment for deleting the second item from the suit schedule. Accordingly, the same second plaintiff filed one another application in I.A.No.60 of 2012 for amending the plaint for getting it deleted, but that was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the dismissal of this application, the present one other C.R.P.(MD)No.2689 of 2012 has been filed.

(3.) WHEREAS , the learned counsel for the remaining plaintiffs would vehemently oppose these revisions on the main ground that having taken a very specific stand, the second plaintiff along with other plaintiffs, he cannot now turn turtle and have a volte face and try to claim exclusive right over the second item under some oral arrangement, and such pleas are totally antithetical to the settled principles of law. Nowhere in CPC it is contemplated, for the transposition of the plaintiff as defendant and in such a case, the dismissal of both the applications by the Lower Court warrants no interference.