RAJAN ROY, J. - (1.) Sri Shivakant Tiwari, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.5, which is taken on record.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Narain, Advocate, Sri Shivakant Tewari, Advocate for opposite party no.5 and Sri Harishchandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Deepak Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the opposite party nos.3 and 4. Challenge by means of this petition is to the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner/defendant no.3 for transposition as plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 1-A, C.P.C. and the affirmation of the said order by the Revisional Court.
(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that the property in dispute was earlier alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff/opposite party no.5 in favour of opposite party nos.3 and 4, but the plaintiff/opposite party no.5 filed a suit for cancellation of the said instrument which was decreed ex parte against the opposite party nos.3 and 4 herein. After the suit was decreed ex parte the opposite party no.5 sold off the same property in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter an application was filed under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree, to which the plaintiff filed objections, but did not disclose the factum of sale of the property to the petitioner/defendant no.3 and ultimately the said application was allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside.;