Transposition of defendants as plaintiffs remains valid where they retain a live interest and substantial claim after withdrawal of the suit.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the court to add or strike out parties to enable complete adjudication, and Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC permits a defendant to seek transposition as plaintiff on withdrawal of the suit where a substantial question remains against other defendants. On the stated facts, the transposed defendants retained a live interest in the challenge to the sale deed and a claim against the other defendants, so their right to continue was not lost by the original plaintiffs' withdrawal. The transposition of defendants Nos. 3 to 6 as plaintiffs was valid, and the challenge to that order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether defendants who were earlier transposed from the plaintiff side could again seek transposition as plaintiffs after the original plaintiffs sought to withdraw the suit, and whether such transposition was permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to add or strike out parties so as to enable complete adjudication of the controversy. Order XXIII Rule 1-A permits a defendant, on withdrawal or abandonment of the suit by the plaintiff, to seek transposition as plaintiff where he has a substantial question to be decided against the other defendants. The suit was centred on challenge to the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, and the transposed defendants retained an interest in the subject matter and a live claim against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Their right to continue the litigation was not extinguished merely because the existing plaintiffs entered into an arrangement and sought withdrawal.

Conclusion: The transposition of defendants Nos. 3 to 6 as plaintiffs was valid and justified, and the appeal against that order had no merit.

---