This petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 16. 11.87 passed by learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati in Title Suit No. 150 of 1982 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to implead the wife of one of the plaintiffs who died during the pendency of the suit as defendant in the suit. 2. The two petitioners with one Sri Reazuddin Ahmed as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the 3 deeds of gift alleged to have been executed by their mother Musstt. Kesiran Nessa in favour of the opposite parties-defendants were fraudulent and void. During the pendency of the suit, a petition was filed before the Court stating by the present petitioner stating that his brother, plaintiff No. 2 Sri Sirajuddin Ahmed died leaving his wife Musstt. Saira Baiu as sole legal representative. It was prayed that as Saira Banu did not want to be impleaded as co-plaintiff, she might be impleaded as defendant in the suit. 3. The aforesaid petition was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the petition was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation. It was further contended that Saira Banu was not legally married wife of Sirajuddin Ahmed, and as such, she did not rightly want to be impleaded as party in the suit. On the aforesaid grounds, it was prayed that the petition for impleading Saira Banu as a defendant should be dismissed. 4. The learned Assistant District Judge held that no petition for substitution having been filed within the period of limitation of 90 days, the suit abated so far as it related to tie plaintiff No. 2 and there was no justification to set aside the abatement. It was observed that the plaintiff/petitioner should have prayed for impleading Saira Banu as plaintiff and should have left the matter to her to be impleaded as defendant. On the aforesaid two grounds, the learned Assistant District Judge by the impugned order rejected the prayer of, the petitioner for impleading the wife of the deceased, plaintiff No. 2 as defendant in the suit. On the aforesaid two grounds, the learned Assistant District Judge by the impugned order rejected the prayer of, the petitioner for impleading the wife of the deceased, plaintiff No. 2 as defendant in the suit. The petitioners have now .challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the learned Assistant District Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and in the facts and circumstances of the case, committed jurisdictional error in not allowing transposition of the sole heir of the deceased-plaintiff No. 2 as defendant. 5. Heard Mr. A. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Perused the order of the learned Assistant District Judge. It appears that the learned Assistant District Judge did not properly appreciate the scope and ambit of the powers vested in the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-section (2) ;of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Code which is relevant for the purpose of the present controversy reads as follows:- "Court may strike out or add parties-(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as .plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions- involved in the suit, be added." 6. From a bare reading of order I Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that the Court has got ample power to order transpo­sition of the parties if it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the question involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of the proc­eedings. This power of transposition can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding. No question of limitation is involved in such cases. Though the power is discretionary, it has to be exercised by the Court if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have challenged the validity of deeds of gift executed by their mother. No question of limitation is involved in such cases. Though the power is discretionary, it has to be exercised by the Court if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have challenged the validity of deeds of gift executed by their mother. During the pendency of the suit, one of the plaintiffs died leaving behind his wife-as his sole heir and legal representative. She was not willing to join as plaintiffs, petitioners herein, therefore, prayed for impleading her as a defendant. It was stated that under the facts and circumstances of the case, transposition of the heir of the plaintiff No. 2 from the plaintiff to defendant will not change the nature and character of the suit. It was contended that for a complete adjudication of the suit, it was necessary to implead the wife of the deceased plaintiff No. 2 as defendant. 7. 'v I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 1O of the Civil Procedure Code 1 am of the opinion that for a complete adjudication of the question involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is nece­ssary to implead Saira Banu, wife of the deceased plaintiff No. 2 as a proforma defendant. 8. The learned Assistant District Judge acted erroneously in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners and thereby failed to exercise judicial discretion vested in him. The impugned order dated 16.11.8? rejecting the prayer for transposition of Saira Banu as a defendant is set aside. Saira Banu is directed to be impleaded as proforma defendant in Title Suit No. 150 of 1982 pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge No. l, Guwahati. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed.