Party transposition in suit proceedings allowed where a co-plaintiff asserts an adverse claim and is needed for complete adjudication.

A co-plaintiff who asserts an adverse claim to the subject-matter of the suit cannot properly continue in that role where no joint, several or alternative right to relief is pleaded in his favour. The Court held that Order 1 Rule 10(2) permits a wider adjustment of party status so that all persons necessary for complete adjudication are before the Court, and that Order 23 Rule 1 does not bar correction of the party's position. The proper course was to strike him off as plaintiff and implead him as a defendant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, though joined as a co-plaintiff, could be struck out from the plaint and transposed as a defendant when he asserted an adverse claim to the subject-matter of the suit.

Analysis: The joinder of the petitioner as a second plaintiff was not supported by Order 1, Rule 1, since no joint, several or alternative right to relief was pleaded in his favour. Once he set up a claim adverse to the first respondent, his continuance as a co-plaintiff became inappropriate. At the same time, his presence was necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of all questions involved in the suit, and the wider interpretation of Order 1, Rule 10(2) required that parties interested in the dispute be brought before the Court so that the controversy could be fully settled. The Court also held that Order 23, Rule 1 did not prevent the appropriate correction of his position in the suit.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to be struck off as plaintiff and added as a defendant.

---