Transposing of original proforma defendant as co-plaintiff in suit for possession would be justified in view of defendant’s direct and legal interest in the controversy involved

In this case, the Trial Court passed an order, allowing the application of transposing the original proforma defendant as co-plaintiff. It is a civil suit for possession, where the claim of the proforma defendant of having purchased parts of suit land during pendency of litigation is not disputed by the plaintiffs. On the said basis, the prayer of the proforma defendant to join as co-plaintiff is not opposed by the original plaintiff-the lessee.

Due to subsequent events, proforma defendant No. 7 had started sailing in the plaintiffs' boat and had acquired interests common to the plaintiff. It was then a logical corollary to transpose the proforma defendant as a co-plaintiff. Refusal to do so would cause him prejudice. By such transposition, the nature and scope of the civil suit were not being changed or enlarged. The claim of the proforma defendant was not inconsistent with that of the original plaintiff, who had dominus litis i.e., to whom a suit belongs.

The object of Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is essentially to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter of the suit so that the dispute may be determined in their presence and the multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. As per Order I Rule 10 of Code, to add a party in the suit, provisions of Code cannot be invoked unless the party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. As the proforma defendant had a direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit for possession, the order passed by the trial Court was proper.

Appearing Counsels: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Ms. Vandana Kumari, Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Mr. Mukul Sood