IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1520 of 2010 Between: P. Savitramma & 6 others .. Petitioners AND B. Jayalakshmi & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1520 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the docket order, dated 01.05.2009, in I.A.No.1176 of 2008 in O.S.No.44 of 2004, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby plaintiffs 2 to 9 in the suit were permitted to transpose as defendants 3 to 10 in the suit. Challenging the same order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since plaintiffs 2 to 9 are the joint owners of the property, they cannot be permitted to transpose as defendants 3 to 10 and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that because plaintiffs 2 to 9 were not co- operating with the first plaintiff to proceed with the suit, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition so that the right of plaintiffs 2 to 9 would not in any manner be affected. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. 5. Order I Rule 10 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as follows: “Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.” 6. The specific case of the first plaintiff in the trial Court is that due to some disputes arisen between the first plaintiff and respondents, plaintiffs 2 to 9 were refusing to co- operate with her and withholding some of the documents with them; that as they are local people, those documents were kept in their possession when there were no disputes and they are also trying to alienate the properties; that as they are not co-operating, the trial of the suit has not been commenced even though it is of the year 2004. Hence, the present application is filed to transpose them as defendants 3 to 10 in the suit. 7. There cannot be any dispute that a Court may transpose a plaintiff as a defendant. In case of difference between co-plaintiffs, it is appropriate to transpose one or more of them to be defendants. 8. Admittedly, the suit is filed by all the plaintiffs against the sole defendant for evicting him from the petition schedule land. It is not in dispute before this Court that all the plaintiffs have right, title and interest in the schedule property. It seems plaintiffs 2 to 9 said to have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the first plaintiff in view of the fact that all the plaintiffs have a common interest to safeguard the property and file a suit for eviction. After filing of the suit, some disputes arose among plaintiffs and it is stated that plaintiffs 2 to 9 were not co-operating with the first plaintiff and they withheld some of the documents. That allegation has not been denied or disputed. So, when plaintiffs 2 to 9 are not co-operating, the trial Court rightly permitted them to transpose as defendants 2 to 10 in the suit. By transposing them as defendants 2 to 10 in the suit, the right, title and interest of plaintiffs 2 to 9 would not in any manner be affected. If they want to adduce any evidence, they can adduce it as well. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the case of plaintiffs 2 to 9 when they are transposed as defendants 3 to 10. Hence, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition. That order needs no interference. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 10th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1520 of 2010 Date: 10th March, 2011 KL