JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order of transposition; the defendant No.1 in the suit has preferred this civil revision. It does not appear to be in dispute that the applicant was given a contract for transporting transformers belonging to the non-applicant No. 1 from Ramtek railway station to Totaldoh. During the course of transportation, certain loss was suffered by the non-applicant No.1. It also appears that the goods in transit were insured with the non-applicant No. 2 against loss during transit. The non-applicant No.1, therefore, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,00,939/- against the applicant as defendant No.1 and the non-applicant No. 2as defendant No.2. During the suit, the non-applicant No.2 asserted that it had satisfied the claim of the non-applicant No.1 and, therefore, entitled to reimbursement from the applicant. Accordingly, it made an application for transposition as plaintiff No.2 in the suit, which was not opposed by the N.A. No.1 (plaintiff) but was opposed by the applicant (defendant No.1). The application was allowed and, therefore, the defendant No.1 has preferred this civil revision. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision has no substance and deserves to be dismissed. If non-applicant No. 2 considers that after satisfying the claim of the non-applicant No.1 it was entitled to claim reimbursement from the applicant-carrier, it was perfectly within its right. The argument that as a result of transposition of the non-applicant No.2 as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit would require amendment of the pleadings and that the suit would be barred by time on the date of transposition deserves to be rejected. After the amendment, the applicant will have a right to amend his written statement and to contest the claim of the non-applicant No.2 as insurer of the goods in transit. The limitation for the purpose of suit or claim of the Insurance Company would be the date on which it satisfied the claim of the non-applicant No.1. Even otherwise, it would be open to the applicant to show that the claim of the N.A. No.2 on the date of transposition was barred by time. The limitation for the purpose of suit or claim of the Insurance Company would be the date on which it satisfied the claim of the non-applicant No.1. Even otherwise, it would be open to the applicant to show that the claim of the N.A. No.2 on the date of transposition was barred by time. It was next argued that as per terms of the agreement of transport, between the applicant and the non-applicant No.1, the non-applicant No.1 was bound to insure the goods entrusted to the applicant for the purpose of carriage and, therefore, the liability for any loss during transit would be on the Insurance Company and not on him. This argument is still open to the applicant and it may be shown that in consequence of the alleged term in the contract between the parties, he, as a carrier, was not liable for any loss suffered by the consignor and/or consignee of the goods and that the Insurance Company was, therefore, not liable to claim reimbursement from him. However, at this stage of the case, tenability of the claim raised on behalf of the insurer cannot be gone into. For the foregoing reasons, this revision fails and it is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.