M. SULTAN BEEVI ALIAS CHINNA PILLAI Vs. UTHUMANUMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to transpose the second respondent in S.A. No. 412 of 1975 as the third appellant in the above said, second appeal. The suit was filed against the petitioner herein and also the two appellants in the above second appeal for redemption. The petitioner herein is no other than the son of the first appellant and the brother of the second appellant. The decree is a joint decree and it is executable against the petitioner and also against the appellants 1 and 2 herein jointly. It is clear from the facts of the case that since the petitioner was away in Singapore at the time of filing the second appeal and, since there was some delay in sending the vakalath, the petitioner was impleaded as the second respondent in the second appeal.

(2.) THIS application to transpose is opposed by the first respondent purely on the ground that the petitioner must file an independent second appeal and also the right under the law of limitation has accrued to the first respondent herein. MR.Sreekumaran Nair the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and also first and second appellants in the above second, appeal submits, that there is absolutely no conflict of interest between the appellants now on record and the petitioner herein and further the appellants are agreeable for such a transposition. He cited Radhaballabh Prasad Narain Singh v. Raghunath Lal and Ors. : AIR1939Pat397 where in some Privy Council reports have also been referred to. In that decision a Bench of the Patna High Court has held as follows:

(3.) ORDER 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is wide enough to give discretion to this Court to transpose the necessary party if it finds that he can effectively along with the appellants put forth the contention in respect of a joint decree got against the appellants and also the petitioner herein.