Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, defendant in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 94 of 2000, is aggrieved of order dated 11.08.2010 by which plaintiff no. 2 has been transposed as performa defendant on an application filed by the plaintiff no. 2 under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC.
(2.) Plea raised by the petitioner is that Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC does not permit transposition of a plaintiff as defendant.
(3.) Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC provides that at any stage of the suit the plaintiff may abandon the suit against all or any of the defendant or abandon whole or part of his claim against one or several defendants. Rule 1-A to Order XXIII CPC provides that when the plaintiff abandons or withdraws the suit, on an application of the defendant if the Court forms an opinion that a substantial question in respect to one or other defendants is required to be decided, the defendant may be transposed as a plaintiff in the suit. One of the grounds for transposition of a defendant as plaintiff is affinity of interest between the plaintiff and the defendant. A similar analogy shall be applicable in case of transposition of a plaintiff as a defendant. In a case where interest of a plaintiff if found sailing alongwith one or more defendants, or one or more plaintiffs support the claim of the defendant such a plaintiff is then required to be transposed as a defendant.;