Transposition in second appeal was refused where it would expand the appeal and raise respondent-specific estoppel issues.

Transposition of a respondent as appellant in a second appeal may be considered under Order 23 Rule 1A CPC and Section 107 CPC, but the court noted that limitation was not automatically attracted merely because transposition was sought. The request was refused because the proposed transposition would expand the scope of the appeal by bringing in issues personal to the respondent, including conduct-based estoppel arising from his acceptance and dealings under a later settlement deed. The ruling therefore treats transposition as discretionary and unsuitable where it would alter the character of the appeal and introduce respondent-specific controversies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 8th respondent could be transposed as the 3rd appellant in the second appeal.

Analysis: The prayer for transposition was considered in the context of the appellant's reported decision not to prosecute the appeal, the court's power to transpose a respondent under Order 23, Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the application of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to appeals. It was also held that no question of limitation arose merely because the respondent was sought to be transposed, but transposition would widen the scope of the appeal by introducing issues personal to the respondent, including conduct-based estoppel arising from his acceptance and dealings under the later settlement deed.

Conclusion: The prayer for transposition was refused.

---