M/s. Pat International & Ors. vs Indian Overseas Bank & Anr.

Application for transposition of Respondent No. 2, M/s. Volga Tannery, as Appellant No. 6 in the appeal on the ground that Appellant, i.e., M/s. Volga Tannery, has also preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment in Appeal No. 785 of 2025 which was filed on 20^th May, 2025 while the present appeal was filed on 23.8.2024 being Appeal Diary No. 785 of 2024.

Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that issue involved in the appeal is similar and there may be possibility of contradictory findings as both the appeals arises out of the same order and judgment.

Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit that if the transposition of the Appellant is allowed, they would withdraw the Appeal Diary No. 537 of 2025 filed by M/s. Volga Tannery subject to the issues raised by them in the appeal. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kiran Tandon -vs- Allahabad Development Authority & Another (AIR 2004 SC 2006).

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank would oppose the prayer that separate appeal has already been filed by the Appellant and they are prosecuting wherein all the issues have already been raised. Appeal has yet not been admitted. Transposition of the Applicant would also be subject to the Law of Limitation and Waiver.

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties we find that both the appeals are filed against an order passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata in O.A. 03 of 2008 dated 25th January, 2024. Appeal Diary No. 785 of 2024, I.A. 504 of 2024 is pending wherein waiver from making pre deposit is sought for. In the Appeal Diary No. 785 of 2024, as far as issue of limitation is concerned, M/s. Volga Tannery, is already impleaded as Respondent No. 2 although proforma. Hence, the issue of limitation will lose its importance in this matter as far as it relates to M/s. Volga Tannery.

In the case of Kiran Tandon (supra) it was held that Court has power under Sub-Rule 2 Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to transfer defendants to the category of plaintiffs and where the plaintiff agrees such transposition should be readily made. This power could be exercised by the High Court in appeal, if necessary, suo motu to do complete justice between the parties. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Privy Counsel in Bhupendra Narayan Sinha -vs- Rajeshwar Prasad (AIR 1931 PC 162).

In the present case, Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that he has no objection to transposition of Respondent No. 2 as Appellant in the appeal.

Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Applicant Proforma Respondent No. 2 M/s Volgo Tannery is permitted to be transposed as Appellant in the appeal subject to the other statutory conditions.

Appeal Diary No. 537 of 2025 (M/s Volga Tannery -vs- Indian Overseas Bank) stands disposed of as withdrawn, as prayed for.

Necessary amendment be carried out by the Appellant within a week. Proforma Respondent No. 2, now transposed as Appellant, would be at liberty to file supplementary affidavit in the appeal with copy to the Appellant who may file opposition to the same within two weeks.

Application, I.A. 581 of 2024, is filed for deletion of the name of Appellant No. 5, namely Izharul Haque, application is not in accordance with the Rules. Accordingly, dismissed. However, Appellant is given liberty to file afresh within a week in accordance with Rules with copy to the Respondents who may file opposition within a week thereafter.

Copy of the order be retained in the records of Appeal Diary No. 537 of 2025.

List on 16^th July, 2026 for hearing of I.A. 504 of 2024.