IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8955 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1718/07 IN OS.91/2007, SUB COURT, PALA .......................................... PETITIONER: ------------------ ABRAHAM THOMAS, VADAKKEL HOUSE, MELENPARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. PIOUS THOMAS, CHOWATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. T.C.THOMAS, THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELENPARA P.O 3. JISHORE THOMAS, THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELENPARA P.O. 4. JINUMOL THOMAS, THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELENPARA P.O 5. GRACIOUS THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, CHOWATTUKUNNEL, RESIDING AT BERTEL GASSE, 17-19/4/20, 1210, WIEN, AUSTRIA, REPRESENTED BY PIOUS THOMAS THE PLAINTIFF. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 8955 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Pala in I.A.1718/07 in O.S.91/07 whereby the Court has permitted transposition of 5th defendant as the additional 2nd plaintiff. I am not going into the entire details for the reason it may affect the contentions of the parties at the stage of trial. But with the materials available the Court is trying to find out whether there is any impropriety in the order passed by the Court below. 2. The 5th defendant is the person who is really having the right over the property. The plaintiff in so many places in the plaint itself submits that he is only an agent and as the 5th defendant is staying abroad the plaintiff being the recognized agent is managing the affairs. There is a contention for the defendants that such an authorisation is not there. Now already the concerned person namely the 5th defendant is in the party array. In order to have a proper W.P.C 8955 OF 2008 -:2:- adjudication and if it is found that he is the person interested in the property a prayer is made to transpose him as he 2nd plaintiff. The learned counsel would contend transposition does not generally mean a situation like this. Normally transposition is done when a suit is about to be abandoned and the defendants interested in the suit want to prosecute the suit. But in suits for partition even otherwise a defendant can get himself transposed as a plaintiff if he feels that the plaintiff has colluded with the other defendants. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case there cannot be any dispute that 5th defendant is the real person who is either entitled or not entitled to the reliefs. Therefore under this situation the Court feels that his junction as plaintiff is necessary which cannot be found fault with. Therefore I dismiss the writ petition making it very clear that all the contentions raised by the defendants 1 to 4 are left upon to be decided at the stage of trial. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-