PRAKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by petitioners, who originally were plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 but now are transposed as defendants No. 11 and 12 (herein after referred to as petitionerstransposed defendants) against the impugned order dated 11.8.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib in an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. preferred by respondents No. 1 to 13 (herein after referred to as plaintiffs) for transposing petitioners herein as defendants No. 11 and 12 in the suit, whereby petitioners have been transposed as defendants No. 11 and 12 in the suit.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a civil suit has been preferred by plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 13 along with petitioners herein (transposed defendants) against respondents No. 14 to 23 (herein after referred to as defendants) for declaration, stating therein that the properties in joint ownership and possession situated in District Sirmour and District Una had been allotted to plaintiffs and defendants respectively on account of family settlement and as a result thereof plaintiffs were in possession of property in District Sirmour and defendants were enjoying property at District Una and both the parties i.e. plaintiffs and defendants were not claiming any right against each other in the properties in their respective possession i.e. plaintiffs were not claiming any right in property at Una in possession of defendants and vice versa qua property at Sirmour in possession of plaintiffs.

(3.) During pendency of the suit, when case was listed for plaintiffs' evidence, defendant No. 3 had expired and his legal representatives were proceeded against ex parte and suit was proceeded further. However, when the case was listed for defendants' evidence, the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 3 had appeared and their application for setting aside ex parte order was allowed on 2.2.2015 and thereafter they had filed fresh written statement on 25.2.2015, in response whereof transposed defendants who were plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 at that time (present petitioners) had filed separate replication, admitting the case of defendants, whereafter on asking them to clarify their stand they, petitioners-transposed defendants, (plaintiff No. 3 Parkash and plaintiff No. 4 Roshni) had withdrawn the suit on their part on 4.3.2015 and 11.3.2015 respectively, whereupon remaining plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 to 13) were constrained to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 13.3.2015 for transposing plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 (petitioners-transposed defendants) as defendants.