Omission of Order I Rule 10 does not invalidate transposition where inherent power exists.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 1 December 2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Ejectment Suit No. 55 of 2022.

By that order, the Trial Court allowed an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), permitting amendments to the plaint and transposing plaintiff no. 2, Santosh Shaw, as a pro forma defendant.

The petitioner did not object to the other amendments but challenged the transposition, contending that such relief ought to have been sought under Order I Rule 10(2) or Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC, and not under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The opposite party submitted that plaintiff no. 2 no longer had any right, title, or interest in the suit property because he had obtained a separate portion that did not include the disputed property, and that the application also contained several amendments properly falling within Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

1. Whether the Trial Court could allow the transposition of plaintiff no. 2 as a pro forma defendant through an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, despite the application not expressly invoking Order I Rule 10(2) or Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC?

2. Whether the omission to mention the specific procedural provision supplying the source of power invalidated the Trial Court’s order when the Court otherwise possessed the requisite statutory or inherent power?

Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the Court to allow amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, while Section 151 CPC preserves the Court’s inherent powers to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC specifically addresses the addition, deletion, or substitution of parties, and Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC concerns transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff; however, the Court held that the validity of an order is not defeated merely because the correct source of power is not expressly mentioned.

Relying on Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, and the principles referred to in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740, and Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal, (1983) 2 SCC 422, the Court applied the rule that where the power exists by reading two provisions together, an order referring to only one provision may be construed as having been made under both; even the mention of a wrong provision or omission of the applicable provision does not invalidate the order.

The Court also considered the Division Bench decision reported in AIR 2009 Calcutta 160 and the Patna High Court decision reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Patna 8327.

The Court accepted that Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is the specific procedural provision ordinarily relevant to transposition of parties, but held that the application also sought several substantive amendments that fell squarely within Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Since the application expressly invoked Order VI Rule 17 along with Section 151 CPC, and since the Trial Court possessed power to grant the necessary procedural relief, the absence of an express reference to Order I Rule 10(2) did not render the order without jurisdiction.

Applying the principle in Tulsiram Patel, the Court treated the order as one passed under the provisions collectively supplying the necessary power.

The Court therefore found no procedural or jurisdictional error in permitting plaintiff no. 2—who was alleged to have no subsisting interest in the suit property—to be transposed as a pro forma defendant alongside the other amendments.

The civil revision, CO/332/2026, was accordingly dismissed without costs.

An urgent photostat certified copy was directed to be supplied upon compliance with the requisite formalities.