Cheque Bounce Cases Should Ordinarily Be Sent To Mediation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls For Mediation In NI Act Matters 138 NI Act | Belated Plea Of Forged Signatures Cannot Be Used To Delay Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Handwriting Expert Sections 332 & 333 IPC | Lawful Discharge Of Duty Must Be Proved, Mere Status As Public Servant Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Bus Conductor Accused of Assaulting Traffic Inspectors Custody With Biological Mother Cannot Ordinarily Be Treated As Illegal Detention: Delhi High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus For Return Of Child To Canada Foreign Custody Orders Must Yield To Welfare Of Child: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enforce Canadian Return Order Through Habeas Corpus Possible Criminal Racket Luring Young Girls Through Self-Proclaimed Peers And Tantriks Must Be Examined: J&K High Court Orders Wider Judicial Scrutiny Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction 149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Directly Recruited Engineers Entitled To Seniority From Date Of Initial Appointment Including Training Period: Supreme Court Section 32 Evidence Act | If There Is Even An Iota Of Suspicion, Dying Declaration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Framing A Case On Public Perceptions And Personal Predilections Ends Up In A Mess: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Alleged Parricide Arson Case When Oppression Petition Is Pending, Courts Must Ensure The Subject Matter Does Not Disappear Before Adjudication: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo In ₹1000 Crore Redevelopment Dispute Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support

Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC-Court empowered to transfer defendant to plaintiff status for complete justice: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

P&H HC observed (KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. SARBJEET SINGH & OTH. D.D. 02 Feb 2023) that court has the power to transfer a defendant to the category of plaintiffs and where the plaintiff agrees, such transposition should be readily made if it is necessary to do complete justice between the parties.

The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondents for possession of land by specific performance of the agreement to sell or, in the alternative, for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff in 2015, against which respondents no. 2 to 4 filed an appeal against the petitioner and respondent no. 1. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent no. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for transposing himself as appellant no. 4 and filing his Memorandum of Appeal. The petitioner contested the said application by filing a reply. However, the Ld. Court below allowed the application in the impugned order dated May 25, 2018. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

The petitioner argued that the application should not have been allowed as the conditions for transposition have not been fulfilled, and that the issue of fraud raised by the newly transposed appellant requires evidence to be led. The petitioner also contends that respondent no.1 has no common interest with the other appellants, and that the Ld. Court below should have decided the question of fraud before allowing the transposition. The petitioner further argues that respondent no.1 should have filed a separate appeal and that the Ld. Court below has failed to consider the question of limitation. The petitioner contends that the very veracity of the agreement to sell is in dispute and that this is a dispute between brothers, which will affect the petitioner's interests. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.2.44 lacs has also been paid pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013.

The petitioner further argued that respondent no. 1 is not an interested party and that there is no common interest between him and the other appellants. The petitioner's counsel further submits that the issue of fraud should have been framed and evidence should be led as the newly transposed appellant has levelled allegations of fraud. There is no commonness of interest between the appellants and that the dispute is inter se brothers, and the petitioner has no role in that.

Respondent no. 1 argued that prima facie fraud appears to have been committed against the respondent and that it is open to the Ld. First Appellate Court to frame additional issues, which can be decided by the said court. The respondent's counsel further argues that all issues can be decided in the present appeal itself to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting conclusions.

Hon’ble High court observed that the respondent No. 1 is a co-owner of the suit property, and it has been admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is a necessary party to the proceedings, and his rights as a co-owner will be affected.

The court has agreed with respondent No. 1's submission that filing separate proceedings would lead to multiplicity of litigation and conflicting pronouncements.

P&H High Court held that the alleged signatures of respondent No. 1 on the power of attorney and written statement are apparently different from those on the agreement to sell, and therefore, the commonality of interest between respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and whether fraud was played upon respondent No. 1 will be determined by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court is required to adjudicate on all the issues raised in the case in order to do complete justice between the parties, and the rights of the petitioner cannot be effectively, fully and finally determined without first adjudicating upon the issues raised by respondent No. 1.

Appeal Dismissed.

Kewal Krishan Vs. Sarabjit Singh and others

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:43 AM
149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:43 AM
Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:42 AM
Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:42 AM
Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:38 AM
ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:34 AM
Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court