ORDER M.P. Chinnappa, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The brief facts leading to these two petitions are that O.S. No. 450 of 1989 was filed on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hassan for declaration that Javenahalli Mutt, Hassan is the Branch of Kodimutt and as there is no Swamiji appointed to run Javenahalli Mutt, the Petitioner herein be directed to appoint a Muttadhipati in Javenahalli and also to pay Court cost, etc. It was a suit filed in a representative capacity after obtaining permission of the Court and several Defendants also were impleaded as Defendants in the suit. When the suit was so pending, the first Plaintiff filed an application under Order 23, Rule 1 numbered as IA-32 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit. At that time, the Petitioner filed IA-33 under Order 23, Rule 1(5) Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to transpose himself as Plaintiff in place of the original Plaintiff. The Court below after hearing both the parties passed an order on 26.7.2000 allowing IA-32 filed by the Plaintiff permitting to withdraw the suit and dismissed IA-33 filed by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by this common order, the Petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3084 of 2000 against the order passed on IA-33 and he also filed Revision Petition No. 4121 of 2000 against the order passed on IA-32. 3. From the perusal of the order, it is clear that the Court dismissed IA-33 on the sole ground that the Petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 679 of 1991 which is subsequently renumbered as O.S. No. 158 of 1995 and therefore the Petitioner could not prosecute that suit without being transposed as Plaintiff in O.S. No. 450 of 1989. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the prayer in O.S. No. 158 of 1995 which suit came to be filed by the Petitioner for permanent injunction against 5th Respondent restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property belonging to the Mutt and also withdrawing the amount held in the Bank and interfere with the management of the Mutt. 5. The present suit is filed as stated above, is for declaration and other consequential reliefs. 5. The present suit is filed as stated above, is for declaration and other consequential reliefs. The Court below, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has misconstrued the prayers of the parties in both the suits to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to be transposed as a Plaintiff in the suit. In the light of these facts, it is necessary to refer to Order 23, Rule 1(5) of Code of Civil Procedure as amended in Karnataka which reads: (5) Where the Plaintiff in a suit instituted or conducted under the provisions of Rule 8 of Order 1 of this Code or all Plaintiffs therein if there are more Plaintiffs than one, apply for permission to withdraw the suit, notice of such application shall be given in the manner prescribed by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of Order 1 of this Code for issue of notice of institution of the suit, and the cost of such notice shall be borne by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiffs, as the case may be. If upon such application being made a Defendant in the same suit having the same interest as that of the Plaintiffs applies for permission to be transposed as Plaintiff to conduct the suit further, he shall be permitted to do so and the Plaintiffs' application dismissed. 6. In this case, there is no dispute that the Petitioner has the same interest as that of the original Plaintiff who sought to withdraw the suit. Therefore, in view of the mandatory requirement of the rule referred to above, the Court ought to have allowed the application of the Petitioner permitting him to come on record as Plaintiff in place of the original Plaintiff. Therefore, the petitions deserve to be allowed. 7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent however, submitted that the declaration sought for by the Plaintiff is barred by time in view of the fact that he filed a suit in O.S. No. 679 of 1991 wherein specific objection was raised, etc. However, this question will have to be gone into by the Court at the stage of final disposal of the suit. Therefore, this ground is left open for the parties to agitate at the appropriate stage. 8. However, this question will have to be gone into by the Court at the stage of final disposal of the suit. Therefore, this ground is left open for the parties to agitate at the appropriate stage. 8. With the above observations IA-32 filed by the Respondent seeking permission to withdraw the suit is dismissed and IA-33 filed by the Petitioner seeking permission to transpose himself is allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside. The present Petitioner is permitted to transpose as Plaintiff in place of the original Plaintiff and consequently, the suit in O.S. No. 450 of 1989 is restored on the file directing the Court to proceed with the case at the stage it was pending. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below by 5.11.2001 and take necessary directions from the Court. No order as to costs.