IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6536 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 26, 2009 Church of North India Trust Association … Petitioner Versus United Church of North India and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. S.D. Anand, J. The plaintiffs – respondents had filed the suit for a declaration to obtain the invalidation of judgment and decree dated 26.11.1993 (in Civil Suit No. 713 of 1993 titled “Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America Vs. United church of North India Trust Association”. The present petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.1 therein. Defendant – respondent No.1 herein (defendant No.4 therein) had filed a plea for transposition as a plaintiff. The essential premise of the request, upon which the request was based, was that the plaintiff – respondent Surinder C.R. No.6536 of 2007 Sagar Chand is dead, that the whereabouts of the other two plaintiffs – respondents are not traceable and that there was an apprehension that the plaintiffs – respondents, who were not properly prosecuting the case, may collude with the other defendants and withdraw the suit at any stage, thereby jeopardizing valuable right of the defendant – petitioner. The plea was resisted by defendant Nos. 1 and 5 to 7 therein by challenging the maintainability thereof. It was also averred that defendant No.4 therein had already filed an independent suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 therein challenging the appointment of trustees in terms of appointment deed dated 13.12.1994. It was averred that defendant No.4 therein only who had got the suit filed in the names of the plaintiffs therein. It was noticed in the impugned order itself that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs therein made a statement conceding the allowance of the plea aforementioned. The plea came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P/5). The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that all the plaintiffs – respondents having died (as per the present instructions), the learned counsel who purported to be appear on their behalf had no authority to make a statement conceding the allowance of the application. It is also argued that the learned Trial Court had not adverted to the controversy about the similarity of an earlier litigation filed by respondent no.1 herein and defendant no.4 therein. The plea raised thereby is that the impugned plea would 2 C.R. No.6536 of 2007 not be maintainable, and competent too, in view of the filing of an independent suit for that very relief. These two facets would, obviously, have a relevant bearing on the controversy under reference. The petition is disposed of, with a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the plea for transposition afresh in the light of the averments made before this Court. Disposed of accordingly. March 26, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3