Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA MADHUKAR CHORGEversusKAMAL RAMESH PHADTARE AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- NITIN B SURYAWANSHI
Holding
The trial court's discretion to transpose a defendant as plaintiff is not reviewable by writ and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Madhukar Chorge, challenged a lower court order that permitted defendant No.7 to be transposed as a plaintiff in a partition suit. The trial court had allowed the transposition on the basis that the original plaintiff was ill and unable to attend court, and that defendant No.7 had accepted the plaintiff's claim and sought his share. The petitioner argued that the move would prolong litigation and that no prejudice to him was shown. The High Court examined the application and the trial court's reasoning, noting that the lower court had exercised its discretion properly and that the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for interfering with such a decision. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the order allowing transposition of a defendant as plaintiff in a partition suit is amenable to challenge under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner suffered any prejudice due to the transposition of defendant No.7 as plaintiff.
Subjects
- partition suit
- transposition of party
- writ petition
- civil procedure
- extraordinary jurisdiction
Judgment
1 25-WP-506-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 506 OF 2026
RAJENDRA MADHUKAR CHORGE
VERSUS
KAMAL RAMESH PHADTARE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Ajit Jaywant Kenjale, Advocate for Petitioner
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. By way of present petition, petitioner challenges the
order dated 09/12/2025, passed by learned 5th Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Satara below Exhibit-173 in R.C.S. No.247/2012,
thereby allowing prayer of defendant No.7 i.e. respondent No.8
herein to transpose him as a plaintiff in the suit.
2. Heard learned advocate for petitioner. Perused the
documents placed on record including the application at Exhibit-173
and the impugned order.
3. Petitioner / defendant No.9 opposed the application at
Exhibit-173 contending that the plaintiff and other defendants are
intending to prolong the litigation. All the plaintiffs and defendants
are standing at the same position as the suit is filed for partition,
hence, the claim of defendant No.7 is not tenable.
SVH
2 25-WP-506-26.odt
4. Admittedly, the suit is filed for partition. In the
application at Exhibit-173 it is contended that defendant No.7 is son
of the plaintiff / respondent No.1. He has filed written statement
accepting the claim of plaintiff and he has further claimed his share.
Plaintiff is patient of high blood pressure and is suffering from
repeated dizziness. She is undergoing treatment, therefore, she is
not in a position to attend the Court. Since defendant No.7 has
same prayer like that of plaintiff, he may be transposed as plaintiff.
5. Petitioner / defendant No.9 has failed to point out any
prejudice caused to him by transposition of defendant No.7 as
plaintiff. Learned advocate for petitioner strenuously argued that
the evidence affidavit of plaintiff is already filed on record. Be that
as it may. Trial Court has allowed the application by recording
cogent reasons and has rightly exercised the discretion, which is
not liable to be interfered with in exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction.
6. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is,
therefore, dismissed.
(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…