Transposition after withdrawal is impermissible; review cannot reopen settled issues or create a fresh right to contest.

Transposition of a respondent to appellant status must be sought while the proceeding is still pending; once an appeal is withdrawn, the lis ends and transposition cannot be ordered later under Order I Rule 10 read with Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC. The Court also treated the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 as having been filed in the appellants' own right, not in a representative capacity for the review applicant. Prior notice of withdrawal was found on the record, and the applicant was held barred by estoppel, waiver and constructive res judicata from seeking transposition at a later stage. Review jurisdiction remained limited to error apparent or new material, so re-agitation of settled issues was not permitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transposition of a respondent to the category of appellant can be allowed post-withdrawal of the appeal; (ii) Whether the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by the appellants in representative capacity of the review applicant; (iii) Whether the review applicant had prior notice of withdrawal of the appeal; (iv) Whether the review applicant is barred by estoppel and constructive res judicata from seeking transposition at this stage; (v) Scope of review - how far the questions urged can be re-agitated.

Issue (i): Whether transposition of a respondent to the category of appellant can be allowed post-withdrawal of the appeal.

Analysis: Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits addition and substitution of parties at any stage of a live proceeding, while Order XXIII Rule 1-A applies specifically where a suit or analogous proceeding is withdrawn or abandoned and a defendant seeks transposition. The provisions were read together to mean that transposition must be sought while the lis is still alive and cannot be directed after the appeal has already been withdrawn and ceased to exist. The cited authorities were distinguished on facts, including cases involving representative proceedings, partition suits, probate matters, or applications made before withdrawal.

Conclusion: Transposition after withdrawal of the appeal is not permissible. This issue is decided against the review applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by the appellants in representative capacity of the review applicant.

Analysis: Sections 397, 398 and 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 were construed to distinguish between a representative application under sub-section (3) of Section 399 and an individual application maintainable under sub-section (1) on the strength of qualifying shareholding. The original petition was held to have been filed by the contesting respondent in her individual capacity, not on behalf of other shareholders. The appeal under Section 10F was by persons aggrieved in their own right, and the appellants and the review applicant had distinct grievances and different grounds. The record also showed that the review applicant had earlier supported the findings of the company law forum.

Conclusion: The appeal was not filed in representative capacity of the review applicant. This issue is decided against the review applicant.

Issue (iii): Whether the review applicant had prior notice of withdrawal of the appeal.

Analysis: The Court relied on the postal record, tracking details, the common postal delivery channel, the service on the company in control of the review applicant, the advocate's letter, and the prolonged pendency of the withdrawal application in the cause list. These circumstances were held sufficient to establish prior notice before the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The review applicant's lack of appearance or timely transposition request despite such notice was held to be unexplained.

Conclusion: The review applicant had prior notice of the withdrawal of the appeal. This issue is decided against the review applicant.

Issue (iv): Whether the review applicant is barred by estoppel and constructive res judicata from seeking transposition at this stage.

Analysis: The prior order recording that the review applicant supported the findings of the company forum, coupled with the failure to press the transposition prayer at the recall stage and the absence of any timely transposition application, was held to attract estoppel, waiver, and constructive res judicata. The Court found that the review applicant was attempting to resile from an earlier accepted position and reopen issues already concluded on merits in the recall proceedings.

Conclusion: The review applicant is barred by estoppel and constructive res judicata from seeking transposition at this stage. This issue is decided against the review applicant.

Issue (v): Scope of review - how far the questions urged can be re-agitated.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was held to be confined to error apparent, discovery of new material, or analogous grounds. The earlier dismissal of the recall application had already adjudicated the material issues on merits, and the present grounds were available earlier and did not disclose any patent error. The Court held that review cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or as a device to re-agitate settled issues.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. This issue is decided against the review applicant.

Final Conclusion: The review application failed on all material issues, and the earlier order refusing recall stood confirmed, leaving the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Transposition under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be sought while the proceeding is still pending, and review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen issues already decided on merits or to create a fresh right to contest an appeal after withdrawal.

---