RAJNI AGARWAL Vs. RADHARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order passed in civil suit No. 12 -A/98 by First Additional District Judge, Morena on 21.10.1999. An application under order I Rule 10(2) CPC was filed by the petitioner for transposition as plaintiff in the civil suit. Petitioner is a defendant in the civil suit and has claimed that she is adopted daughter of Seth Kanhaiyalal and her interest is not in conflict with that of the plaintiff. Petitioner further claimed that deceased Kanhaiyalal has executed the will in her favour wherein she has inherited right from deceased Kanhaiyalal. The application was opposed and it was contended that the said will is forged and she has no right in the property. She is not an adopted daughter. A criminal case regarding forged will is pending in the criminal Court. It is further contended that to get out of the criminal case petitioner has filed the said application. Petitioner is taking advantage of the forged document. Petitioner's right is in conflict with the plaintiff, therefore, the application should be dismissed.

(2.) IN the light of written statement submitted by the petitioner specific issue is framed whether petitioner was adopted by Kanhaiyalal on the wishes of Gangajali on 7.1.1972 and the said deed was registered and another issue regarding the execution of 'Will' by Gangajali on 11.7.1988 in favour of the petitioner is also framed. Trial Court on considering the applications found that the interest of petitioner and that of the plaintiff is conflicting and rejected the application. Petitioner has filed a copy of the order passed in civil suit No. 32/91 wherein this Court has directed that petitioner be impleaded as a party as she is claiming herself to be an adopted daughter on the basis of registered adoption deed and this factum of adoption requires consideration at the time of trial and to avoid multiciplicity of proceedings it would be in the fitness of circumstances to implead petitioner as legal representative of deceased defendant Gangajali.

(3.) IN the case of Bhaiyalal v. Maheshprasad, reported in 1962 JLJ SN 211, it is held that when the two defendant opposite -parties filed applications to be transposed as plaintiff's and be permitted to prosecute the suit, as the original plaintiff had no cause of action. It was held that order I Rule 10 (2) CPC, undoubtedly. empowers the Court to allow a proper party to be impleaded. The same thing can be done even in exercise of inherent powers. Such a course can be adopted in the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. This can be done inspite of the fact that originally a person had filed the suit, who had no cause of action. As the proposed plaintiffs are already before the Court as defendants, they can be permitted to be transposed as plaintiffs.