Abandonment under Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC can support transposition even without prior review of dismissal order.

Dismissal of a suit as not pressed was treated as abandonment under Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC, so the defendant's request for transposition as plaintiff had to be considered on its merits. The court noted that the right to seek transposition does not depend on first reviewing or setting aside the abandonment order, because the provision is designed to protect a party with a substantial question to pursue against the other defendants. Rejection of the transposition application solely for want of review was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of the suit as not pressed amounted to abandonment attracting Order XXIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and entitled the defendant to seek transposition as plaintiff; (ii) Whether the application for transposition could be rejected merely because the order dismissing the suit as not pressed had not been reviewed.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of the suit as not pressed amounted to abandonment attracting Order XXIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and entitled the defendant to seek transposition as plaintiff.

Analysis: A dismissal as not pressed was treated as abandonment by the plaintiff. The governing rule permits transposition where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned, and due regard must be given to whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided against the other defendants. The prior decisions relied on recognized that abandonment may occur by express statement or by silence, and that restoration or continuation of proceedings may be ordered where necessary to effectuate the applicant's rights.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to have the request for transposition considered under Order XXIII Rule 1A, since dismissal as not pressed amounted to abandonment.

Issue (ii): Whether the application for transposition could be rejected merely because the order dismissing the suit as not pressed had not been reviewed.

Analysis: The trial court proceeded on the premise that transposition could not be considered unless the earlier dismissal order was first reviewed. That approach overlooked the settled position that the right to seek transposition does not depend upon setting aside the abandonment order first, and that the court may act to protect the substantive rights of the applicant. The relevant statutory scheme and earlier rulings were not properly adverted to.

Conclusion: The rejection of the transposition application on that ground was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the transposition application was restored to the trial court, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A dismissal of a suit as not pressed constitutes abandonment for the purpose of Order XXIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a court cannot refuse to consider a defendant's transposition request merely because the dismissal order has not first been reviewed.

---