IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 32376 of 2005(D) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 1265 2005 IN OS.348/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. V.PAZHANIMALA, S/OLLAKSHMI. 2. KANNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN. 3. SULOCHANA, W/O.PAZHANIMALA. 4. SUJESH, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVOCATES MR.V.CHITAMBARESH MR.T.C.SURESH MENON MRI.SREEKANTH.K.R MR.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. V.THANKA, D/O.LATE LAKSHMI, RESIDING AT THOTTUNGALPURA VEEDU, MATTUMANTHA, PUTHUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. V.JANU @ JANAKI, D/O.LATE LAKSHMI, RESIDING AT KADAYANKADIL, KANNADI P.O. YAKKARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 3. V.PRAKASAN, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. 4. V.SAROJINI, D/O.LATE LAKSHMI RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. WP(C).No. 32376 of 2005(D) -2- 5. V.SUDEVAN, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. 6. V.SAHADEVAN, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. 7. V.GIRIJA, D/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT KULATHUMPALLA HOUSE, MUTTIKULANGARA PO PUDUPPARIYARAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 8. MEENAKSHI, W/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHILVEEDU, VENNAKKARA, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 9. CHANDRIKA, D/O.LATE V.BALACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT MANIYANKAD VEEDU, KADAMKODE, THIRUVALATHUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 10. ARAVIND (MINOR), S/O.LATE.V.BALACHANDRAN RESIDING AT MANIYANKAD VEEDU, KADAMKODE, THIRUVALATHUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 9TH RESPONDENT). 11. CHANDRIKA, W/O.V.KANNAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32376 of 2005(D) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.1265 OF 2005 IN O.S. No.348/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD DATED 22.6.2005. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1266/2005 IN O.S. NO. 348/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD DATED 22.6.2005. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J ----------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.32376 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No.348 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders. 2. By Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the court below has allowed transposition of the 3rd plaintiff as 13th defendant in the suit. The counsel for the writ petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 contended the Order XXIII Rule IA of Code of Civil Procedure only provides that a defendant can apply for transposition as plaintiff, when a suit is withdrawn or sought to be abandoned. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the transposition of the 3rd plaintiff from the array of plaintiff has been done not on defendants' application but on application of plaintiffs and therefore impugned order is irregular and illegal. The court below considered the contentions raised by the petitioners and held that the court has power to transpose one of the plaintiffs as the defendant. Relying on the decision of this court in Janadas v Vedanayagam [2004(3) KLT 425] the court below held that W.P(C)No.32376 of 2005 -2- the court has power to transpose one of the plaintiffs as a defendant. The court below also stated that under Order 1 Rule 10 one of the plaintiffs can be transposed as a defendant if his original jointer was improper. The court also held that apart from the powers under Order 1 Rule 10, the Civil Court has inherent power to transpose one of the plaintiff as a defendant. For the said reasons, the application filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 was allowed. The 3rd plaintiff was transposed as supplemental 13th defendant. 3. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The trial court rightly held that the court is competent to transpose one of the plaintiffs as a defendant. The petitioners are not entitled any reliefs. The writ petition therefore stands dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE rhs