IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.71 of 2008. Date of decision : 07.07.2008. Madhu Sood ….Petitioner. Versus Vijay Kumar Sood & Another ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner who is the plaintiff before the learned Court below is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure. The grievance of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein, who is son of the plaintiff, are the successors in interest of Shri Vinod Kumar Sood, husband of the plaintiff and father of respondent No.2. The petitioner- plaintiff alleges that in a suit filed by respondent No.1 against M/s.Shiv Dyal Kedar Nath, respondent No.2 herein had filed a written statement admitting the claim contrary to the interest of 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 the plaintiff. He never disclosed the factum of the suit having been filed nor the fact that he has taken a stand which is against the petitioner. The application was resisted by respondent No.1 herein on a number of grounds and the learned trial Court by its order dismissed the application on the ground that the written statement regarding which the complaint is made that it contains admissions contrary to the interest of the plaintiff herein, was filed before the institution of the present suit. The petition was, therefore, dismissed by the learned Court below. The learned trial Court has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter. Once it was brought to the notice of the Court below that continuation of respondent No.2 herein as a plaintiff would lead to a situation where the plaintiffs were fighting amongst themselves and the grant of a decree as prayed for would not be possible, surely, there was no legal bar in transposing respondent No.2 as a defendant giving him (respondent No.2 herein) a fair chance to contest the suit by accepting or rejecting the case set up by the petitioner herein in accordance with law. Surely, this would not change the course of the litigation if the parties are given a fair chance to contest the case on merits. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued that respondent No.2 will be transposed as a defendant and the suit would proceed thereafter in accordance with law. There shall 3 be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. July 7, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.