DILIP KUMAR RENAPURKAR Vs. VIVEK PANDAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revisions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.993 of 1996,on the file of the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts Hyderabad. Originally the suit was filed against respondents 4 to 8 herein, as defendants 1 to 5 for the relief of partition. Subsequently, respondents 1 to 3 herein got themselves impleaded, as defendants 6 to 8, by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. At a later point of time, respondents 1 to 3 filed l.A.No.1676 of 2002 for transposing them as plaintiffs 2 to 4. The trial court allowed the same, through its order, dated 28-3-2003. C.R.P.No.5660 of 2003 is filed against it.

(2.) Consequent upon the respondents 1 to 3 being transposed as plaintiffs, they filed l.A.No.1564 of 2003, seeking amendment of the plaint, on certain aspects. It was resisted by the petitioner herein. The trial court allowed the I.A., through order dated 2-7-2004. C.R.P.No.5372 of 2004 arises out of it.

(3.) Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao, Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the respondents 1 to 3 got themselves impleaded and the suit being onefor partition, it was open to them to take any stand, be it in support of the existing defendants, or the plaintiffs, or partly, in both ways, and that there was no justification or necessity, to get themselves transposed as plaintiffs. He submits that the plaintiff is always the master of the suit, and the only exceptional circumstances, when a defendant can be transposed, as a plaintiff, is where there exists similarity and unity of interest, with the plaintiff. It is also his contention that the plaint, as on to-day, is the exclusive pleading of the petitioner, and it cannot be permitted to be amended by another party.