N ANAND Vs. N MEENA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the original suit in O.S.No.41 of 2006 pending on the file of VI Additional District Judge (erstwhile Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai, now re-designated as IV Additional District Judge, Madurai) is the petitioner in the present revision petition. The second respondent is the mother of both the first respondent and the revision petitioner. The mother and daughter, namely, second and first respondents as plaintiffs 1 and 2, filed the abovesaid suit for partition, claiming 2/3 share in the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the mother, namely, the second respondent (first plaintiff) lost interest in pursuing the suit and filed a memo, stating that she was not interested in pursuing the suit and thus she had relinquished her part of the claim made in the plaint. The first respondent (second plaintiff) felt that such a relinquishment by the first plaintiff would make her claim not maintainable, if the second respondent is allowed to continue as the first plaintiff. The same was the reason why, she filed an application I.A.No.69 of 2011 praying for an order transposing the second respondent (first plaintiff) as second defendant in the suit, so as to enable the first respondent/second plaintiff to pursue the suit so far as her share is concerned. The petition was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant on the ground that order 23 Rule 1-A permits the transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff and it does not permit the transposition of a plaintiff as a defendant.

(2.) The learned Trial Judge, after considering the rival submissions made on both sides, came to the conclusion that the subsequent stand taken by the second respondent/first plaintiff to abandon her claim made in the suit had necessitated the first respondent/second plaintiff to seek the transposition of the second respondent/first plaintiff as a defendant and hence, the learned Trial Judge allowed the said application. Questioning the correctness of the said order, the revision petitioner/defendant has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition, on various grounds set out in the grounds of Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) This Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, by Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the first respondent/second plaintiff and by Mr.K.Guhan, learned counsel for the second respondent/first plaintiff, who was directed to be transposed as second defendant. The materials brought before this Court by the parties, have also been taken into consideration.