1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.889 OF 2008. Shaikh Khayyum S/o Mehtabsaheb Shaikh and another ... Petitioners. Versus Pratap @ Pradeep S/o Arun Kulkarni and others ... Respondents. ... Mr. V.D. Gunale, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.K. Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. A.R.Kale, advocate holding for Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent No.4. Mr. Amol Awote, advocate for the Respondent No.7. Respondent Nos.2,3 5 and 6 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2 2. The Respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. He is the brother of the original defendant No.7. The contesting defendant Nos.5 and 6/petitioners are the purchasers of land bearing Gat No.174/1 and Gat No.175/4 which are two parcels of land out of four lands about which the partition is sought. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial Court and, therefore,the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed RCA No.222/2004. The learned Additional District Judge, Omerga, partly allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for afresh trial with direction that minor defendant No.7 should be given proper representation as provided U/o XXXII of the C.P.C. After remand of the suit, the minor defendant No.7 and original defendant No.8 submitted application (Exh.132) seeking their transposition as plaintiffs. That application was allowed and hence, this petition is preferred by the purchasers/defendant Nos.5 and 6. 3. So far as partition suit is concerned, it is well settled that the parties are 3 interchangeable. The claimants are plaintiffs and some of the claimants who are defendants also can claim status as plaintiffs. The rights of the purchasers are not likely to be impaired due to such kind of transposition. The contention of the petitioners is that the transposition is outside the scope of the remand order rendered by the first appellate Court. I do not agree. What was directed by the first appellate Court is to ensure that the rights of the minor defendant No. 7 are properly secured by giving him adequate representation through a guardian ad litem. The request for transposition is impliedly made so as to translate said direction into action. The reasoning of the learned trial Judge is quite proper and no interference is called. The petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp88908