Judgment P. K. Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs of title Suit No.77 of 1990 against the order dated 29-9-1992 passed by the learned Munsif, Chas at Bokaro, rejecting the plaintiffs application to withdraw the suit under Order Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowing the defendant No.3-opposite party No.3s application under Order xxiii Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil procedure for transposing him as plaintiff and the plaintiffs as defendants Nos.3 and 4. 2. The plaintiffs case is that they were having a shed No. A/28 allotted by the Bokaro Industrial Area Development authority (hereinafter to be referred to as the biada) for doing their business of manufacturing bolts nuts, rivets, etc. When their business was extended they wanted more space and accordingly applied for allotment of contiguous shed No. A/27 in their favour. Allotment was granted on 2.1.1990 and the plaintiffs were given possession on 5.1.1990 but surreptitiously in collusion with defendant No.3 M/s. Sono Deo Enterprises, their allotment was cancelled on 8.1.1990 and as such the plaintiffs filed the present suit for the following reliefs: " (i) That on adjudication of the aforesaid fact and circumstance let it be declared that the cancellation of Shed No. A/27 to the plaintiff on 8.1.1990 vide letter no.69 and the allotment to the same to defendant No.3 on 8-1-1990 vide letter No.67 is illegal, arbitrary whimsical inoperative and without jurisdiction. (ii) That further it be declared that the plaintiff has got right title and interest and possession over the suit land, i. e. on shed no. A/27 Industrial Estate Industrial Area, b. S. City on the basis of the delivery of possession made by the defendant on 5.1.1990. (iii) That a permanent injunction be granted against the defendants No.1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the Shed No. A/27. That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. " 3. In the suit the defendant No.3 appeared and filed written statement and also objected to the petition for temporary injunction under Order xxxix, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure. During the pendency of hearing of the injunction matter on plaintiffs initiation the allotment made in favour of defendant No.3 on 8.1.1990 by the BIADA was cancelled and reallotment was made in favour of the plaintiffs on 18.7.1990. During the pendency of hearing of the injunction matter on plaintiffs initiation the allotment made in favour of defendant No.3 on 8.1.1990 by the BIADA was cancelled and reallotment was made in favour of the plaintiffs on 18.7.1990. In that view of the matter the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of civil Procedure for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit if necessary. The defendant No.3 appeared and filed a petition under Order xxiii, Rule 1 (A) of the Code of Civil procedure for rejection of the plaintiffs prayer and allowing him to be transposed as plaintiff and plaintiffs no.1 and 2 as defendants No.3 and 4. Both the parties were heard at length and the plaintiffs prayer was rejected allowing the defendant No 3s prayer. It should be mentioned here by addenda to a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiffs deleted their prayer regarding the liberty for filing a fresh suit, i. e. they only wanted to abandon the suit by mere withdrawal. 4. Mr. K. K. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners submitted that the transposition order is beyond the scope of the learned Munsif as such prayer can only be allowed to proforma defendant who has identical interest as that of the plaintiffs. He referred to a decision of gujarat High Court in Jetniben V/s. Mani ben and another, AIR 1983 Guj.194. 5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of defendant No.3 has justified the impugned order by referring to two decisions of our High Court in Doman Paswan and other V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1988 pljr 857 and Suresh Chandra Choudhary V/s. Smt. Ranjana Devi and others, 1991 (2) PLJR 490. Order XXIII, Rule 1-A has been introduced by the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure for curtailing the multiplicity of suits which runs as follow: "1-A. Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1 and the defendant over and above 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 substantive question to be decided as against any of the other defendants". 6. 6. Here it appears that BIADA is playing hot and cold at the same time or at a different point of time. Some time they were siding with the plaintiffs sometimes with the defendant so the substantive question remains of grievance of both the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 against BIADA who are defendants No.1 and 2, respectively. 7. It is the contention of Mr. K. K. Sahay that if such transposition is allowed, the position of the pleading would be wholly changed when the defendant No.3 transposed as a plaintiff shall have to come up with an amendment petition which may change the nature of the suit. I find no force in this submission as the substantive question remains regarding the allotment of Shed no. A/27 against BIADA. In such a position to avoid the multiplicity of suit such transposition cannot be said to be illegal even if some amendments may be necessary on dates due to subsequent development in the suit. Mr. V. Shivnath further submits that if such transposition is not allowed then after an order being passed and the allotment being made in the year 1990, the defendant no.3 would be in precarious position as he would not have limitation in his hand to file a fresh suit against BIADA and the plaintiffs. It is found that such delay has been caused due to admission of this revision-petition by this Court and kept pending for several years at the stage of hearing. 8. In view of the position and the legal authorities as mentioned above, I am of the view that transposition order by the impugned order is legal and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure when there is no jurisdictional error of law on the face of it but before parting with the records, I must say that in view of such transposition the court-fees being paid by the plaintiffs, value of which must be returned by defendant no.3 within 15 days next from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. 9. For the reasons aforesaid this revision-petition is dismissed but without costs. Revision Dismissed.