1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2585/2008 [Manoj Nandlal Tibdewal ..vs.. Smt. Laxmidevi Gangadhar Agrawal & others] AND WRITPETITION NO.3050/2008 [Nandlal Madanlal Tibdewal ..vs.. Smt. Laxmidevi Gangadhar agrawal & others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.N. Mohta Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sarda Advocate for the respondent -3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 11.3.2008 allowing the application filed by respondent no.3 / defendant no.3 Girish for transposing his name as a plaintiff and for deletion of the name of the original plaintiff and defendants no. 2,4,5 and 6 from the array of defendants. The plaintiff Laxmi had filed a suit for recovery of amount. She claimed to be the sole owner of the amount which was advanced to defendant no.1 / petitioner. There was another suit in between the family members and Laxmi / plaintiff and in that suit the amount which was sought to be recovered by Laxmi was allotted to the share of Girish / respondent no.3. He was entitled to recover the amount from the defendant no.1. The compromise decree entered into by the family members had attained finality. After the decree was passed Girish made an application for transposing himself as a plaintiff and 2 for removal of the name of the plaintiff and some of the defendants from record. The trial court allowed the application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the impugned order, along with the application and the other documents, it is clear that the trial court did not commit any error in permitting the respondent no.3 to transpose as the plaintiff and also for deletion of the name of defendants no.2,4,5 and 6 from the array of defendants. Since Laxmibai / plaintiff had not made an application for deletion of her name as plaintiff, the trial court could not have deleted her name as neither had she filed an application for deletion of her name, nor had she given any no-objection to the application filed by the defendant no.3. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent no.3/ Girish could have been joined as a plaintiff along with Laxmibai. The order passed by the trial court, is otherwise just and reasonable. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the transposition could not have been permitted as the partition was not registered, is liable to be rejected. Order passed by the trial court on 11.3.2008 is modified only to the extent that the name of Laxmibai / plaintiff is not deleted from the record. Since this is a suit of 2000, the trial court is directed to decide it as expeditiously as possible and positively within a period of one year from the date of this order. Order accordingly. No order as to cost. JUDGE SMP