IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4386 of 2005 Date of decision:18.05.2009 Dharampal ...Petitioner versus Balbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the dismissal of the petition for transposition of the first plaintiff as the first defendant filed at the instance of the second plaintiff on the ground that the 1st plaintiff had colluded with the defendants and he was setting up a plea of a family settlement to deny the entitlement of the plaintiffs in equal share as contended in the suit as originally framed. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Bala Ram and Gilasi Ram respectively who themselves were sons of Ram Karan. The suit had been filed for the relief of injunction against the defendants. 2. It is admitted that subsequent to the institution of the suit that one of the plaintiffs alone had entered into an arrangement with the defendants and it had immediate bearing to the relief of injunction as sought for by the plaintiffs together. The Courts below rejected the Civil Revision No.4386 of 2005 - 2 - petition only on the ground that the respective contentions of the parties could be proved at the time of trial and the transposition was possible only if one of the parties had abandoned or withdrawn his claim under the provisions under Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC. 3. The reasoning of the Court below in rejecting the petition, in my view, is wholly erroneous. The Court should have seen that the defendants' counsel was himself filing his objections also on behalf of the first plaintiff and a common line of defence was made for the defendants as well as for the first plaintiff in the application filed for transposition by the 2nd plaintiff. While defendants could be represented by any number of counsel having distinct lines of defence, the plaintiffs have no such privilege. There shall be a unified approach to trial by the plaintiff and they shall be represented by the same set of counsel. Any conflict amongst the plaintiffs will derail the course of justice and it is only to meet such contingencies that the law provides for transposition of parties which the Court, on due disclosure of facts, invokes under Order 1 Rule 10. This was eminently a fit case where on the basis of the pleadings as adduced for the petition filed for transposition and by the conduct of the counsel for the defendants taking an objection also for the first plaintiff, the Court should have permitted transposition of the 1st plaintiff as the 5th defendant. The order of the Court below, under such circumstances, is set aside and the Civil Revision is allowed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2009 sanjeev