Allowed

Aruna Ghosh and Ors. v. Renu Bala Ghosh and Ors.

Tripura HC7 Aug 2017CRP/43/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a civil revision petition against an order rejecting a request to transpose a party from plaintiff to defendant in a partition suit. Relying on Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and precedent, the Court set aside the rejection and directed the trial court to effect the transposition.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court is directed to transpose the plaintiff No.6 as defendant No.8 in the suit and proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Aruna Ghosh and Ors. Vs Renu Bala Ghosh and Ors. — Partition | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

CRP No. 43/2017

¶2

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶3

Present:

¶4

For the petitioners : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B. Debroy, Advocate.

¶5

07.08.2017.

¶6

Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Debroy, the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

This revision is directed against the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S(P) No. 7 of 2015 rejecting the application for transposing the respondent No.8 herein, who was the plaintiff No. 6 in the suit, as the defendant No.8 in the suit.

¶8

Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court at any stage of proceeding either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, to order that the plaintiff may be transposed as the defendant so as to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

¶9

Notice was issued to the respondent No.8, but there is no representation from him despite proper service of notice. Therefore, I take it that he has no objection to his transposition as defendant No. 8 in the suit.

¶10

In Bhagwan Swaroop and others Vrs. Mool Chand and others : AIR 1983 SC 355 the Apex Court has held that partition suit stands on a peculiar footing and that in a partition suit, any of the parties can claim transposition from the category of the defendant to the category of the plaintiff and vice-versa. The suit in question is admittedly a partition suit. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has improperly exercise its jurisdiction in not allowing the application to get the respondent No.8 transposed as defendant No.6 in the suit.

¶11

The impugned order stands set aside. The trial Court is directed to transpose the plaintiff No.6 as defendant No.8 in the suit and thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶12

Civil Revision petition is allowed.

¶13

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶14

d.dey

¶15

CRP No. 43/ 2017

¶16

Page 1 of 1

Aruna Ghosh and Ors. v. Renu Bala Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna Ghosh and Ors. v. Renu Bala Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khudiram Das Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mani Chandra Sinha and Ors. Vs Santanu Kumar and Ors.

Sanjoy Biswas and Ors. Vs Santanu Kumar and Ors.

Mithu Rani Das and Ors. Vs Badal Ch. Saha and Ors.

Basana Sarkar on Behalf of Accd. Anil Sarkar Vs State of Tripura

Ashoke Nath @ Suman Vs State of Tripura