IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4923 OF 2008 Between: Gipson's Central Baptists Church and another .....PETITIONERS AND G. Pulla Reddy Charity Trust and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4923 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 08.09.2008, in I.A.No.1182 of 2007 in O.S.No.444 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "C.P.C.") read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice to transpose respondent No.13/plaintiff No.3 as defendant No.12 in the suit or delete her name completely from the array of plaintiffs, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The suit was filed by petitioners/plaintiff Nos.1 and 7 and respondent Nos.12 to 19/plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 and 8 to 10 to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 11/defendant Nos.1 to 11 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the present application was filed to transpose respondent No.13/plaintiff No.3 as defendant No.12 in the suit on the ground that respondent No.13 is no longer a member of the Society by virtue of the resolution, dated 08.10.2006; that she was removed from the membership of the Society; and that she was acting against the interest of petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 - Church. The said application was dismissed as per Section 7 of the Registration Act, 1860 (for short, "the Act"). 4. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. empowers a Court to deal with all cases of defect of parties. It enables a Court to strike out the name of any party improperly joined or to add any person as a party who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant. It is, therefore, the duty of Court to keep in mind a relevant consideration that as far as possible multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. A Court may transpose a plaintiff as a defendant in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. Where a co-plaintiff has an interest adverse to the other plaintiff, he can be transposed as a defendant. The reason given by the petitioners herein is that the society removed respondent No.13/plaintiff No.3 from the membership of the society by its resolution dated 08.10.2006. That issue has to be decided in the suit itself. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that respondent No.13/plaintiff No.3 had an interest adverse to the other plaintiffs. No doubt, Section 7 of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case, but at the same time, there must be some reason for transposing one of the plaintiffs as defendant. No such reason is assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application, which needs no interference by this Court and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 27, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4923 OF 2008 January 27, 2011