C DHANDAYUTHAM Vs. M NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second plaintiff in O.S.No. 239 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Palani, is the petitioner herein. I.A.No.1054 of 1983 in O.S.No.239 of 1981 was filed under Order 23, Rule 1-A and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the second plaintiff for transposing him as a defendant in the suit. Order 23, Rule 1-A Civil Procedure Code which was inserted by the Amending Act 104 of 1976 reads as follows:

(2.) ORDER 23, Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code now specifically provides that if a defendant applies to be transposed to the category of the plaintiff the consideration whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided against the other defendants, should be weighed in deciding the application for abandonment of suit or withdrawal under ORDER 23, Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus the above provision does not enable the petitioner to transpose himself as a defendant. It is also relevant to note that the first defendant has pointed out that he has not abandoned any suit and he is prepared to conduct the suit. Under the circumstances, the Court below is correct in holding that the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of transposing himself as a defendant in the suit and that the provision under ORDER 23, Rule 1-A Civil Procedure Code, is not applicable to the present case. In other words, the lower Court had rightly held that I.A.No.1054 of 1983 is not maintainable. There is no infirmity in the order under revision. The revision petition is dismissed under the circumstances without costs.