*1* 15.wp.8913.09 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8913 OF 2009 Dr.Nandalal Prabhudas Tolani & Ors. ..Petitioners -Versus- Sou.Manjusha Rajendra More & Ors. ..Respondents .......... Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/by S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr.Ashok Bhatewara for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 11. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 By way of the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 31st August 2009 vide which an application filed by defendant Nos.1 and 4 and defendant Nos. 6 and 10 as transposing them as the plaintiffs, came to be allowed. 2 Mr.Anturkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the said defendants do not have any pre-existing rights, the learned trial Court has erred in transposing them as the plaintiffs. He submits that though this point is argued, the learned trial Court has not even considered the same. *2* 15.wp.8913.09 3 It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff is a dominus litus. Unless the plaintiffs objects to the said defendants being transposed as plaintiffs, the other defendants cannot have any grievance on that ground. 4 Mr.Bhatewara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs makes a categorical statement that the plaintiffs are not opposed to the said defendants/respondents being transposed as the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, no error has been found in the order passed by the learned trial Court. In so far as the grievance of the petitioners regarding there being no existing of the right in favour of the transposing defendants is concerned, the said issue pertains to the merits of the matter and the parties are always at liberty to agitate the said issue at the stage of hearing of the suit. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] -