JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The opposite parties filed a suit against the petitioners as defendants for cancellation of a sale deed executed by one Rama Nand who was a co-plaintiff. Subsequently by an order dated 23.11.96, the said Rama Nand was transposed as defendant. Against the said order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karvi in Suit No. 159 of 1990, Civil Revision No. 20 of 1996 was preferred. By an order dated 19.4.99 passed by Addl. District Judge 1st Court, Chitrakoot, the said revision was dismissed. It is this order which has since been challenged. Mr. Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the transposition of Rama Nand, the executor of the document, the suit became not maintainable before the civil court and as such, the plaint should have been returned under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Thus, the suit cannot proceed. In such circumstances, he has contended that by reason for the said order passed in revision the plaint should have been returned. The question cannot be gone into in this Court and in view of transposition by virtue of Order 1. Rule 10 of the C.P.C. the question whether any cause of action survives or not and whether the plaint should be returned or not should be determined separately. The consideration of the case for transposition within the meaning of Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. does not postulate a decision under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. or the question of maintainability of the suit as the case may be, and that too without framing issues.
2. Be that as it may, in the suit it was claimed that the property was allotted by virtue of having a settlement in favour of the plaintiffs and that the said Rama Nand did not have right to transfer the suit property in its entirety. Thus, by reason of transposition of Rama Nand, it cannot be said that there was no title left to the remaining plaintiff for which the suit cannot be proceeded with. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the suit cannot be proceeded with by the civil court. since on such transposition. The plaintiffs become Bhumidhari and the cancellation of sale deed in such case is maintainable before the revenue court and as such, the plaint should have been returned. But the said question is dependent upon the question of the maintainability of the suit, in asmuch as when a document is void and can be ignored, a suit before the revenue court would be maintainable but when the document is voidable, the civil court may have jurisdiction. But these are questions which require determination. Such questions could not have been determined within the scope and ambit of transposition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Such questions are questions on merit which can be decided only after Issues are framed.
3. Apart from it, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.4.99 passed in revision affirming the order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Regarding order of transposition, the defendant cannot claim any right to oppose the transposition.
4. As such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition, therefore, falls and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
5. It would be open to the petitioner to raise such question of maintainability or otherwise as have been asked before this Court in course of proceeding on which issues may be framed and decided in accordance with law.