ANAND PRAKASH Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of Ist Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, allowing the application of the plaintiff No. 3 (who is opposite party 3 in these proceedings) to this effect that he did not want to prosecute the suit any further and the suit be dismissed. The suit was filed under S.92, C.P.C. by all the three plaintiffs, who are opposite parties 1 to 3, in representative capacity.

(2.) The plaintiffs opposite parties 1 to 3 after taking the permission to institute the suit under S.92, C.P.C. filed the suit, which was proceeding in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. Subsequently, the plaintiff opposite party 3 moved an application to this effect that he did not want to prosecute the suit any further against the defendants revisionists and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed on his behalf. The defendant revisionist No. 1 Anand Prakash moved an application to this effect that in view of the fact that the plaintiff opposite party 3 did not wish to proceed with the case, the suit should be dismissed. The trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff opposite party 3 to withdraw from the suit and further ordered to transpose him as a defendant in the suit. Instead of dismissing the suit the Court ordered that the plaint be amended accordingly and the suit was to proceed on.

(3.) The contention raised by the revisionists is that the requisite permission to sue under S.92, C.P.C. having been obtained jointly by all the three plaintiffs opposite parties, continuance of the suit after withdrawal of one of them from the array of plaintiffs in the suit, was not warranted, and so the entire suit deserves dismissal. Further, it is contended that the trial Court was not competent to order to transpose the plaintiff opposite party 3 as a defendant to the suit. Contentions of the revisionists have been challenged by the contesting opposite parties.