Transposition after suit withdrawal requires identical substantial interest; a different cause of action bars the relief.

Transposition of a defendant as plaintiff after withdrawal of the original suit is controlled by the principles under Order 1 Rule 10 and is available only where the applicant is a pro forma or necessary party with an identical and substantial interest in the subject-matter. The remedy is intended to preserve adjudication of the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Where the applicant relies on a different cause of action and transposition would change the scope and character of the suit, the relief is not permissible. On those principles, the request for transposition was rightly refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a defendant could be transposed as plaintiff after withdrawal of the suit by the original plaintiff, and whether the applicant had such an identical and substantial interest in the subject-matter as to justify transposition under the Code.

Analysis: The right of transposition under Order 23, Rule 1-A is controlled by the principles governing transposition under Order 1, Rule 10. Such relief is meant to protect a pro forma or otherwise necessary party whose interest is substantially the same as that of the withdrawing plaintiff, so that a real controversy may still be adjudicated and multiplicity of proceedings avoided. Where the applicant's claim rests on a different cause of action and would alter the scope and character of the suit, transposition is not permissible merely because another suit may otherwise have to be filed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to be transposed as plaintiff, and the refusal to permit transposition was correct.

---