Judgment :- The second plaintiff in O.S.No. 239 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Palani, is the petitioner herein. I.A.No.1054 of 1983 in O.S.No.239 of 1981 was filed under Order 23, Rule 1-A and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the second plaintiff for transposing him as a defendant in the suit. Order 23, Rule 1-A Civil Procedure Code which was inserted by the Amending Act 104 of 1976 reads as follows: "Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1 and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order 1 the Court shall, in Considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the application has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants." A careful reading of the above provision shows that it is only the defendant who can transpose himself as plaintiff. But in the instant case, the revision petitioner prays for his transposition as defendant in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 1054 of 1983 the second defendant has stated that O.S.No.239 of 1981 had been filed originally by him and the first plaintiff, against the first defendant who is a tenant under them, for recovery of possession of the property and arrears of rent. He has further stated that the first plaintiff is colluding with the first defendant and is not co-operating with him to conduct the case and hence it is unsafe for him to prosecute the suit along with the first plaintiff. Hence he has come forward with this I.A.No.1054 of 1983 to transpose himself as a defendant in the suit. But we have already seen that under the provisions of Order 23, rule 1-A this petition cannot be entertained because it is only the defendant who can seek transposition as plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot seek transposition as defendant. Therefore, it is clear that under the provisions of Order 23, rule 1-A the case of the revision petitioner cannot be upheld. 2. Therefore, it is clear that under the provisions of Order 23, rule 1-A the case of the revision petitioner cannot be upheld. 2. Order 23, Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code now specifically provides that if a defendant applies to be transposed to the category of the plaintiff the consideration whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided against the other defendants, should be weighed in deciding the application for abandonment of suit or withdrawal under Order 23, Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus the above provision does not enable the petitioner to transpose himself as a defendant. It is also relevant to note that the first defendant has pointed out that he has not abandoned any suit and he is prepared to conduct the suit. Under the circumstances, the Court below is correct in holding that the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of transposing himself as a defendant in the suit and that the provision under Order 23, Rule 1-A Civil Procedure Code, is not applicable to the present case. In other words, the lower Court had rightly held that I.A.No.1054 of 1983 is not maintainable. There is no infirmity in the order under revision. The revision petition is dismissed under the circumstances without costs.