MANJEET SINGH Vs. GURDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has an untenable contention to make that he has a right to compel the plaintiff to take him on board as a coplaintiff.

(2.) The contention is untenable for the reason that no two plaintiffs can speak in two different languages, while the defendants may take as many lines of defence as there are number the defendants. The plaintiff ought to have the common case to propound. In between them if there is a face-off for whatever reason, even if they may derive source of title through the same person and if one of the plaintiffs had been earlier transposed as a defendant, he cannot get back to his status as a co-plaintiff if the other plaintiff does not want to prosecute the case along with him. No prejudice at all can ever arise to the petitioner-3rd defendant, for, if he has a right to the property alongwith the plaintiff, such a right can still be pressed in the suit already filed by him along with his brother but which is being now allowed to be prosecuted only by his brother as a plaintiff. If there is no prejudice, then there is no reason why he should be transposed.

(3.) Transposition is again not a matter of right. The court will always ensure that there is no embarrassment at the trial. There is bound to be embarrassment if the brothers cannot patch up between themselves as plaintiffs and the suit will go on with the 3rd respondent being permitted to take up whatever pleas that he has taken against a co-defendant. It is possible in law to adjudicate rights even amongst co-defendants but it is not possible in law to adjudicate right between plaintiffs. The claim for transposition of 3rd defendant as co-plaintiff is, therefore, untenable and the revision petition is dismissed.