HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 09-12-2009 C.R.P.No.2357 OF 2009 Between: Ramesh Agarwal. …Petitioner. And: Suraj Bhan Agarwal and others. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No.2357 OF 2009 ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.176 of 2009 in O.S.No.125 of 2005. Petitioner herein is the 6th defendant and 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 6 herein are the defendants 1 to 5 respectively. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No.125 of 2005 before the Court below seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15-5-1995. During the pendency of the suit in question, the 6th defendant filed an application in I.A.No.175 of 2009 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 6-11-2008 and allow the 6th defendant to contest the suit by filing the Written Statement in the suit. The Court below after hearing the learned counsel, allowed the application. The 6th defendant has filed another application in I.A.No176 of 2009 in O.S.No.125 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to transpose him as plaintiff No.2 in the suit and make consequential amendments of the word “plaintiff” as “plaintiffs” wherever occurred required in the plaint. The 6th defendant also filed an application in I.A.No.177 of 2009 seeking extension of the time which was also dismissed. In the instant application, the Court below having observed that as, in the first instance, by virtue of disposal of an application in I.A.No.177 of 2009, 6th defendant was not allowed to file his written statement to contest the suit; the question of allowing to transpose him as plaintiff No.2 in the main suit does not arise, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the 6th defendant. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-6th defendant that even though sufficient grounds have been mentioned by the 6th defendant in the application in I.A.No.176 of 2009 seeking to transpose the defendant as 2nd plaintiff in the suit, the trial Court erred in dismissing the same. Hence, the order impugned needs interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 –sole plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 respectively, has no objection for allowing the revision. In this view of the matter, this C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 9th December, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No.2357 OF 2009 Dated 9th December, 2009