AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 209 wordsV.K. Jhanji, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 9.1.1995 whereby Defendants No. 4 to 10 have been ordered to be transposed as Plaintiffs.
The grievance made is that after the application of the Plaintiff has been allowed to withdraw the suit, the order transposing the Defendants as Plaintiffs should not have been passed. The grievance made is totally unfounded because of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1-A which provides that if a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the Plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 and the Defendants apply to be transposed as Plaintiffs under Rule 10 of Order 1, the Court shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other Defendants. The trial Court has opined that the interest of the, Defendants who have been ordered to be transposed as Plaintiffs is the same as that of the Plaintiffs and this discretion having been exercised by the trial Court, no interference in the impugned order is called for.
Consequently the Civil Revision as well as the Misc. Application are dismissed.
Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 8.9.1995.