ORDER U.L. Bhat, C.J. -- 1. Plaintiffs in a suit for declaration are the revision petitioners herein. 2. Alleging that they had obtained lease of the disputed land from the Government and they permitted the first defendant to construct a building therein and further alleging that he had purported to sell the building and the site thereof without authority, to defendants 2 to 6, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the sale-deeds so executed are null and void and for consequential permanent prohibitory injunction. The first defendant filed a written statement opposing the plaintiffs' claim. The defendants 2 to 6 also filed their written statement supporting their derivative title from the first defendant. On 7.4.1993, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking to withdraw the suit. On 8.4.1993, defendants 3, 5 and 6 filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1A seeking to be transposed as plaintiffs to continue the suit. Lower Court heard both these applications and allowed both the applications. The effect is that so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the suit is withdrawn by them and so far as the defendants 3, 5 and 6 are concerned, they are transposed as plaintiffs and the erstwhile plaintiffs are transposed as defendants. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by order passed against them under Order 23 Rule 1A C.P. C. have filed this revision. 3. It may be noticed that before filing the application under Order 23 Rule 1-A C.P.C., the plaintiffs and first defendant filed a compromise application, for recording the compromise and passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs without notice to the defendants 2 to 6. The Court allowed the application and passed a decree against all the defendants without notice to defendants 2 to 6. The decree was subsequently recalled on the application filed by defendants 2 to 6. It is thereafter that the plaintiffs filed application to withdraw the suit. 4. Rule 1A was incorporated in Order 23 by the Amendment Act No. 103 of 1976. By the same Act, certain changes though not material were brought about in Rule 1. The decree was subsequently recalled on the application filed by defendants 2 to 6. It is thereafter that the plaintiffs filed application to withdraw the suit. 4. Rule 1A was incorporated in Order 23 by the Amendment Act No. 103 of 1976. By the same Act, certain changes though not material were brought about in Rule 1. Sub-rule 1 of Rule 1, as it existed before amendment stated thus: "At any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants, withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim." Sub-rule (2) as it existed prior to 1976 read thus :-" (2) Where the Court is satisfied- (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim." Sub-rule (1) of the amended Rule 1 reads as follows :- "At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants, abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim." The amended sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 23 reads thus :- "(3) Where the Court is satisfied,- (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such pint of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim." The only change brought about in the Amendment Act is the substitution of the word ''withdraw" occurring in sub-rule (1) by the word 'abandon'. This change has little impact in the present case. 5. This change has little impact in the present case. 5. Rule 1A reads thus: "R. 1A -- When transposition of defendants as plaintiffs may be permitted: 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 applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants." While appreciating the rule, it is necessary to advert to Rule 10 of Order 1 C.P.C. which deals with the striking out or adding parties and the like. The Court has a power to direct substitution or addition of any person as plaintiff or as defendant or to strike out the name of any party subject to parameters contained in the provision. The provision in Rule 1A of Order 23 supplements the provision of Rule 10 of Order 1 C.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents places reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of Patna High Court in Md. Muzahid v. John Wilson Zedak and another (AIR 1989 Patna 2) which dealt with a situation arising in a suit for decree for specific performance of agreement entered into between the plaintiff and first defendant. The plaintiff desired to withdraw the suit and the prayer was allowed. The second defendant challenged the order in the High Court on the ground that the first defendant had transferred the property to him after suit. The prayer was made before the High Court for transposition of second defendant as plaintiff. Learned Judge allowed the prayer. The Court took the view that Rule 1A of Order 23 makes a departure from the pre-existing law and the limitations on transposition of parties which Courts were observing prior to 1976 Amendment are no longer applicable. The Court declined to follow the decision in Jethiben's case ( AIR 1983 Guj. 194 ) on the ground that the purpose of incorporating Rule 1A was not considered in that judgment. 7. In Jethiben's (AIR 1983 Guj.194), Gujarat High Court held that transposition of some defendants as plaintiffs can be permitted only when they have some interest in common with that of plaintiff. 194 ) on the ground that the purpose of incorporating Rule 1A was not considered in that judgment. 7. In Jethiben's (AIR 1983 Guj.194), Gujarat High Court held that transposition of some defendants as plaintiffs can be permitted only when they have some interest in common with that of plaintiff. The Court also placed reliance on the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. I may incidentally advert to the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manphool & others v. Surja Ram and others (AIR 1978 P & H 216) holding that no order of transposition of the plaintiff or for adding new plaintiffs should ordinarily be passed where it is prima facie patent that if the newly added party or the transposed plaintiff had originally filed the suit on the date when the suit in question was in fact filed, it would have been barred by time. 8. The parameters of Rule1A of Order 23 are prescribed in the rule itself. In considering the prayer of any defendant for transposition as a plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 where the suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff, the Court shall have "due regard to the question as to whether the applicant has a substantial question of law as against any other defendant." This provision leads to two consequences; namely, (1) Regard must be had to the question whether the applicant had a substantial question to be decided as against any other defendant which is a positive aspect and (2) whether the applicant had a substantial question to be decided as against the plaintiff is a negative aspect. Precedents under Order 1 Rule 10 make it abundantly clear that a proforma defendant can be transposed as a plaintiff when the plaintiff seeks to get out of his, position as a plaintiff. That is because the suit in a manner of speaking, is brought by plaintiff not only for his benefit but also for the benefit of proforma defendant whose interest is common with that of the plaintiff. In such a case, the plaintiff in withdrawing or abandoning his case should not be allowed to affect adversely those defendants who have interest common with that of the plaintiff. This position of law cannot be said to have been altered by the incorporation of Rule 1A. In such a case, the plaintiff in withdrawing or abandoning his case should not be allowed to affect adversely those defendants who have interest common with that of the plaintiff. This position of law cannot be said to have been altered by the incorporation of Rule 1A. What was implicit in Rule 1 Order 10 has now been made specific in Rule 1A Order 23. Ordinarily, one defendant may have a substantial question to be decided as against his co-defendant when his interest is parallel to that of plaintiff. The question posed by the learned Judge of the Patna High Court to Mohd Muzahid (AIR 1989 Patna 2) as to the purpose of incorporation of Rule 1A need not detain us since it is clear. The Parliament was undoubtedly aware of the interpretation given by Courts to various provisions of the Code. Parliament desired to make explicit what was implicit in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. That was why the specific provision has been made in Order 23 Rule 1A C.P.C. The amendment is clarificatory and not amendatory. 9. This view is certainly in accordance with the logic generally accepted by Courts. Any person is at liberty to file a suit permitted by section 9 C.P.C. Law does not compel plaintiff to prosecute the suit. It is open to him to withdraw or abandon the claim subject of course to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. It is for the plaintiff to choose the time (subject to law of limitation), the parties against whom he desires reliefs (subject to plea of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties) and the reliefs he desires (subject to the defect in regard to frame of the suit). he cannot be compelled to adopt any opportunity, time, parties or frame though he may undertake the risk of the suit being dismissed on the ground of any defect. Where a defendant's interest runs parallel to that of plaintiff or is common, his interest should not be allowed to be prejudiced by the subsequent action of the plaintiff in withdrawing or abandoning his case. That was why the Courts before the amending Act permitted transposition of such a defendant as a plaintiff and that is why the Legislature has now made an express provision in that behalf. That was why the Courts before the amending Act permitted transposition of such a defendant as a plaintiff and that is why the Legislature has now made an express provision in that behalf. It is one thing to say that a defendant whose interest is common to that of the plaintiff may be transposed as a plaintiff in order to establish the common claim as against the contesting defendants; it is quite a different thing to say that such a defendant must be transposed as plaintiff and the plaintiff should be transposed as a defendant to enable the transposed plaintiff to obtain a decree against the erstwhile plaintiff. This view would go against normal cannons of construction. I am unable, with great respect, to follow the view taken in Mohd. Muzahid's case. 10. I requested the learned counsel for the respondents to express his choice whether his clients desire the suit to be withdrawn wholly or whether his clients prefer to be transposed as plaintiffs without an opportunity to seek a decree against the erstwhile plaintiffs. Learned counsel said that he does not want to make the choice. 11. Law does not countenance a defendant who is not a proforma defendant or a defendant whose interest is not common to that of the plaintiff to be transposed as a plaintiff to continue the suit against erstwhile plaintiff. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Court transposing defendants 3, 5 and 6 as plaintiff is without jurisdiction and is set aside. Revision is allowed to that extent.