HIMA KOHLI, J. 1. By the present order, this Court proposes to dispose of an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC praying inter alia for modifying the order dated 22.8.1990 and excluding the parcel of Land bearing Survey No.304 and 305, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Mulund, Mumbai, admeasuring 15049.80 sq. mtrs. (approximately 18000 sq. yds.) hereinafter referred to as the Mulund Land, from the status quo order made applicable to all the properties, subject matter of the suit. 2. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the application, it is necessary to briefly refer to the relevant facts resulting in the filing of the present application. The accompanying suit was instituted by five daughters of late Shri Dharam Chand Anand and Smt. Charan Kanta Anand against their four brothers and one sister, for partition and injunction claiming inter alia that after the death of their parents, all the children had equal share to the extent of 1/10th share each in the properties left behind by their parents, as detailed in paras 3 and 6 of the plaint. .3. The aforesaid suit was registered vide order dated 22.8.1990 and summons were issued to the defendants. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an interim application for stay, being I.A. No.6552/1990, on which an exparte ad interim injunction order dated 22.8.1990 was passed directing that in the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession. It was further directed that the defendants shall not part with possession or encumber the properties in any manner whatsoever. The interim order is continuing to operate till date. During the pendency of the suit, settlements were arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 3 and defendant No.5. 4. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 5 jointly filed a compromise application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, being I.A. No.4441/1997. The said application was duly allowed, vide order dated 26.11.1997. Thereafter, the plaintiffs No.5 and defendants No.1 to 3 jointly filed an application for compromise being I.A. No.4699/1997, which was allowed and disposed of, vide order dated 26.11.1997. Lastly, the plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 to 3 filed a joint application for compromise being I.A. No.8861/1999 which was also allowed and disposed of, vide order dated 8.9.1999, thus leaving plaintiff No.1 on the record. 5. Lastly, the plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 to 3 filed a joint application for compromise being I.A. No.8861/1999 which was also allowed and disposed of, vide order dated 8.9.1999, thus leaving plaintiff No.1 on the record. 5. In the meantime, the defendants No.1 to 3 filed an application for seeking modification of the interim order dated 22.8.1990, being I.A. No.9423/2001. By way of the aforesaid application, the defendants No.1 to 3 sought modification of the exparte interim order dated 22.8.1990 and directions to the effect that the interim order of status quo be made applicable on all properties which are subject matter of the suit except for the Mulund Land. Notice was issued on the aforesaid application on 5.10.2001. 6. In the year 2003, the defendant No.4, Shri Satish Chand Anand filed an application, being I.A. No.2572/2003, praying inter alia for transposing him as a co-plaintiff. The said application was filed on 19.2.2003 when the plaintiff No.1 had yet to arrive at a compromise with defendants No.1 to 3. On 10.11.2004, the plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.1 to 3 filed a joint compromise application registered as I.A. No.7583/2004, which was allowed and disposed of, vide order dated 10.11.2004 7. As the plaintiff No.1 arrived at a settlement with the defendants No.1 to 3, as recorded in the order dated 10.11.2004, the aforesaid application of the defendant No.4 was simultaneously allowed and he was permitted to be transposed as the plaintiff in the suit. Thereafter, on 23.2.2005, the transposed plaintiff, erstwhile defendant No.4 filed an application, being I.A. No.1653/2005 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree on admissions made by defendants No.1 to 3 regarding the Mulund Land. Notice was issued on the aforesaid application on 1.3.2005 and the same is pending disposal. On 16.5.2005, the defendants No.1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, being I.A. No.8841/2005, which is also pending disposal. On 3.4.2007, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking modification of the status quo order dated 22.8.1990 so as to exclude the Mulund Land from the said order. .8. On 3.4.2007, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking modification of the status quo order dated 22.8.1990 so as to exclude the Mulund Land from the said order. .8. Counsel for the transposed plaintiff contended that there is no justification for continuing the exparte status quo order in respect of the Mulund Land as all the parties to the suit had agreed that the said Land does not belong to the estate of the deceased father and is beyond the subject matter of the suit. In support of his contention that all the parties are in agreement that the Mulund Land does not belong to the estate of the deceased father and that the same is the personal property of the transposed plaintiff, the counsel relied on averments made in the pleadings and the applications on the record. 9. Counsel for the transposed plaintiff drew the attention of this Court to paras 6(vi) and 12 of the common written statement dated 12.4.1991 filed by the defendants No.1 to 3, para 6(vi) and paras 8 and 9 of the preliminary objections, taken in the common amended written statement of the defendants No.1 to 3, and the averments made in the three compromise applications between the original plaintiffs on one hand and the defendants No.1 to 3 on the other hand, in each of which, decrees were passed. Counsel for the plaintiff further relied on the averments made by the defendants No.1 to 3 themselves in I.A. No.9423/2001, wherein a specific prayer was made for modification of the exparte status quo order dated 22.8.1990 so as to seek exclusion of the Mulund Land therefrom. 10. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that a meaningful reading of the written statement is necessary and in this context, referred to a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Veerabhadrappa and another Vs. Smt. Gangamma and another reported as AIR 2003 Karnataka 348 to state that when a defendant gets transposed as one of the plaintiffs, the written statement filed by such a defendant gets transposed and would form a part of the plaint. 11. The aforesaid application was vehemently opposed on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 3. Smt. Gangamma and another reported as AIR 2003 Karnataka 348 to state that when a defendant gets transposed as one of the plaintiffs, the written statement filed by such a defendant gets transposed and would form a part of the plaint. 11. The aforesaid application was vehemently opposed on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 3. It was contended by the counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 that while seeking transposition, the erstwhile defendant No.4/transposed plaintiff did not make any averment to the effect that the written statement filed by him be read as the plaint or be read with the plaint on the record. In this regard, he sought to draw the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.11.2004 by which the application for transposition being I.A. No.2572/2003 was allowed. He also relied on the order dated 14.7.2003 to claim that the intention of the transposed plaintiff was to adopt the plaint on the record as it is and abandon the written statement filed by him. 12. In support of the aforesaid contention, reference was made to the reply dated 12.1.2006 filed by the plaintiff to I.A. No.8841/2005, filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and, particularly, para 2 thereof, wherein the original defendant No.4/transposed plaintiff stated that he had adopted the plaint of the earlier plaintiffs without any modification/ amendment. Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 stated that the present application is misconceived for the reasons that the transposed plaintiff having filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 18.12.2007, for permission to read the written statement filed by him as defendant No.4, along with the plaint filed by the erstwhile plaintiffs and in the alternative, for permission to amend para 6 of the plaint by deleting the Mulund property from the list of properties shown therein as the property owned by late Shri Dharam Chand Anand, the present application ought not to have been filed. .13. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 to 3 also referred to another suit, being CS(OS) No.1253/2006 entitled Deepak Anand vs. D.C. Anand and Anr. .13. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 to 3 also referred to another suit, being CS(OS) No.1253/2006 entitled Deepak Anand vs. D.C. Anand and Anr. He stated that taking into consideration the fact that vide order dated 14.7.2006, the statement of the transposed plaintiff/original defendant No.4 was recorded therein that he does not want to file a written statement and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in terms of the prayer clause and in view of the averments made in paras 12 and 14 of the plaint filed in the aforesaid proceedings, the inevitable conclusion is that either the Mulund property is a part of the estate of Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand or the larger HUF. He also urged the Court to consider the common amended written statement of the defendants No.1 to 3, where their stand insofar as the claim of the original plaintiffs for 1/10th share each in the property was that the defendant No.4 could not stake any claim in the estate of late Shri Dharam Chand Anand as he had already got his share. 14. Insofar as the three compromise applications are concerned, counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 contended that in the aforesaid applications, the statements made were that of the plaintiffs and not of defendants No.1 to 3 and hence the said defendants could not be bound by the said statements. He submitted that the issue No.2 framed vide order dated 20.1.2005 as to whether the inheritance to the estate of late Shri Dharam Chand Anand and late Smt. Charan Kanta Anand stood settled by way of a family settlement, was framed after the original defendant No.4 was transposed as a plaintiff and the said issue came to be framed in view of the averments made in paras 7 and 8 of the plaint. 15. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 to 3 referred to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC to state that the said provision does not contemplate any additional plaint and hence the plaint as existing on the record can only be taken note of. 15. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 to 3 referred to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC to state that the said provision does not contemplate any additional plaint and hence the plaint as existing on the record can only be taken note of. He also drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Order VI Rule 7 CPC to state that the old pleadings in the written statement cannot be carried by the plaintiff after being transposed and in the absence of seeking any amendment, such a permission cannot be granted. With regard to the law of transposition, he relied on the judgment, Durga Prasad vs. Lal Babu Sah and Anr., reported as AIR 1984 Patna 310. 16. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings on the record which have been referred to by both the sides in support of their respective contentions. 17. Before examining the stand of both the parties, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings and the submissions made by both sides in the various applications on the record, in the context of the Mulund Land. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the following averments made by the defendants No.1 to 3 in support of his contention that the interim status quo order dated 22.8.1990 requires to be modified in so far as the Mulund Land is concerned. 18. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following pleadings in support of his stand :- Para 6(vi) of the common written statement filed by defendants No. 1 to 3:- With regard to sub para (vi), it is wrong and denied that Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand was the owner of Land bearing Survey No. 304 and 305 Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Mulund, Bombay. The said Land was purchased by and is owned and held by M/s Anand Automobiles as asset of partnership firm. It is stated that Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand had resigned from the said partnership firm and received his share in the partnership firm. Accordingly, Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand had no share or interest in the Land either in his personal capacity or as a partner having resigned from the said firm. It is stated that Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand had resigned from the said partnership firm and received his share in the partnership firm. Accordingly, Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand had no share or interest in the Land either in his personal capacity or as a partner having resigned from the said firm. It is further stated that in 1984, the defendant No. 4 also resigned from M/s Anand Automobiles and as part of settlement, he received the aforesaid partnership property in part consideration of his retiring from the partnership firm of M/s Anand Automobiles. Paras 8 and 9 of the preliminary objections of the common amended written statement of the defendants No.1 to 3: Para 8:- That the plaintiffs have claimed the Land bearing Survey No. 304 and 305 at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Mulund, Bombay as belonging to Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand, whereas the said property was and has always been owned by Anand Automobiles, a partnership firm in which Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand was a partner till 1970, whereafter he resigned from the partnership and settled his partnership account with the firm during his lifetime. Even the defendant No. 4, who has turned hostile to the cause of defendants No. 1 to 3 on the erroneous assumption that he may also be able to extract some money and assets out of this frivolous and untenable suit, has averred in his written statement that the above Land never belonged to Late Shri Dharama Chand Anand but was the property and asset of M/s Anand Automobiles. Para 9:- The defendant No. 4 had retired from the partnership firm M/s Anand Automobiles and had relinquished and declared that he had no interest in the Lands, assets and properties of M/s Anand Automobiles including the Lands and buildings at 1, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. The defendant No. 4 had received the Equity Shares and control of M/s Asia Automotive Ltd as well as the Land at Mulund, Bombay. The defendants No. 1 to 3 had similarly given up all shares and interest in M/s Asia Automotive Ltd and the Land at Mulund, Bombay. The defendant No. 4 had received the Equity Shares and control of M/s Asia Automotive Ltd as well as the Land at Mulund, Bombay. The defendants No. 1 to 3 had similarly given up all shares and interest in M/s Asia Automotive Ltd and the Land at Mulund, Bombay. The defendant No. 4 had also signed the disclaimers following the family settlement/arrangement that neither he nor his wife and children were left with any interest in the estate of Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand and Late Smt. Chanan Kanta Anand as well as in D.C. Anand and Sons HUF Para 6(vi) of the common amended written statement of the defendants No.1 to 3:-With regard to sub para (vi), it is wrong and denied that Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand was the owner of Land bearing Survey No. 304 and 305 Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Mulund, Bombay. The said Land was purchased by and is owned and held by M/s Anand Automobiles as asset of partnership firm. It is stated that Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand had resigned from the said partnership firm and received his share in the partnership firm. Accordingly, Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand had no share or interest in the Land either in his personal capacity or as a partner having resigned from the said firm. It is further stated that in 1984, the defendant No. 4 also resigned from M/s Anand Automobiles and as part of settlement of his interest in the partnership firm Anand Automobiles and also of his other interest in the estates of Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand and Late Smt C.K. Anand, he received the Land at Mulund, Bombay in part consideration of his retiring from the partnership firm of M/s Anand Automobiles and relinquishing his interest in estates of Late Shri Dharam Chand Anand and Late Smt C.K. Anand as detailed in preliminary Objection No. 9. Preliminary objection of D-4 in the written statement:- As such in 1984, the defendant was also made to retire from M/s Anand Automobiles in the circumstances mentioned hereinafter. On such retirement of this defendant, this defendant was allotted the said Mulund Land in lieu of his share in the profits and other credits receivable from M/s Anand Automobiles in consideration of this defendant retiring from the said partnership firm of M/s Anand Automobiles Para 16(o) of IA No.4441/97 filed jointly by plaintiffs no. On such retirement of this defendant, this defendant was allotted the said Mulund Land in lieu of his share in the profits and other credits receivable from M/s Anand Automobiles in consideration of this defendant retiring from the said partnership firm of M/s Anand Automobiles Para 16(o) of IA No.4441/97 filed jointly by plaintiffs no. 3 and 4 and defendants no. 1, 2, 3 and 5: The plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 and defendant No. 5 admit that property bearing Survey No. 304 and 305, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Mulund Bombay, admeasuring 15049.80 sq. meters equal to approximately 18,000 sq. yards was purchased/owned and held by M/s Anand Automobiles as asset of the partnership firm and on the resignation of Shri Dharam Chand Anand from the said partnership after having received his share in the partnership, went to the share of defendant No. 4 as part of the settlement of the aforesaid partnership property in part consideration of the said defendant No. 4 retiring from the partnership firm of M/s Anand Automobiles. The aforesaid para also finds mention in all the other compromise applications filed jointly by the erstwhile plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 3, i.e. IAs No.4699/97, 8861/99 and 7583/04. Paras 9 and 10 of IA No.9423/2001 filed by defendants no. 1 to 3 for modification of status quo order: Para 9:- That it is also the case of defendants No. 1 to 3 that vide deed of retirement dated 9th August, 1984, defendant No. 4 retired from the partnership firm M/s Anand Automobiles and took his share from the said partnership firm as specified in the Retirement Deed. One such share was the Land including temporary structure situated at Mulund at Bombay-Agra road admeasuring 15049.8 sq. meter being part of Survey No. 304 and 305 Para 10:- That from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is absolutely evident that plaintiff No.1 cannot have any interest, right or title in the said Mulund Land. There is no cogent justification for including the said property in the alleged assets of late Sh.D.C.Anand or Smt.C.K.Anand wife of late Sh.D.C.Anand. Hence inclusion of the said property at the threshold by the plaintiffs was totally misconceived and erroneous. There is no cogent justification for including the said property in the alleged assets of late Sh.D.C.Anand or Smt.C.K.Anand wife of late Sh.D.C.Anand. Hence inclusion of the said property at the threshold by the plaintiffs was totally misconceived and erroneous. Para 4 of IA No.1653/2005 filed by the transposed plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC:- That this Honble Court vide order dated 10.11.2004 was pleased to allow the said application of the applicant, resulting in transposing the applicant as the plaintiff, in the present suit. Thus, the present applicant has adopted the plaint filed by the erstwhile plaintiffs, with a slight modification, viz. that the present applicant has admitted the fact that the property known as Mulund Land Bombay, was the property of M/s Anand Automobiles, a partnership firm and was not forming part of estate of late Sh.D.C.Anand. Para 15 of the reply of defendants No.1 to 3 to the aforesaid IA No.1653/2005: - That the plaintiff, on his retirement from the partnership firm, viz. M/s Anand Automobiles, was allotted asset and the said properties of the said firm to the exclusion of other partners. One such property was Land including some temporary structures, situated at Mulund on Mumbai Agra Road, Mumbai admeasuring 18000 sq.yds. (15049 sq.mtrs.) being part of survey No.304 and 305. The property was valued at Rs.4,17,088/-. As part of the retirement deed and settlement duly accepted and signed by Satish C.Anand and acted upon it was duly recorded that the continuing partners of M/s Anand Automobiles have taken over the Land, hereditaments and premises situated at 1, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi together with buildings and structure standing thereon and that Satish C.Anand has no right, title and interest of any nature, whatsoever, therein. It is submitted that every part of the family settlement and retirement deed was duly accepted and acted upon by all parties concerned and pursuant thereto all accounts were squared up and finalized between the parties and their respective groups. All transfer of equity shares of the respective groups have taken place and duly recorded in the records. The plaintiff has taken over the Mulund property admeasuring 18000 sq.yards and is taking a frivolous plea regarding transfer in his name. It was and is his responsibility. Defendants have signed all documents which they were called upon to do in this respect. .19. The plaintiff has taken over the Mulund property admeasuring 18000 sq.yards and is taking a frivolous plea regarding transfer in his name. It was and is his responsibility. Defendants have signed all documents which they were called upon to do in this respect. .19. On the other hand, the defendants No. 1 to 3 have relied on the averments of the original plaintiffs, transposed plaintiff/original defendant No.4 as contained in the following pleadings which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: Para 6 of the original plaint:- That in the same manner, late Shir Dharam Chand Anand was owner and possessed of the following properties: (i) Property bearing No. 1 Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. (ii) 25,000 shares in Gabriel India Ltd. (iii) 20,000 shares in Asia Investment. (iv) Jewellery, silver, gold, cash. (v) Share in HUF property in Kidar Cottage, Shimla including the moveable assets lying therein. (vi) Land bearing survey No. 304 and 305 Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, MuLand, Bombay. (vii) Provident Fund of Rs.70,000/- (viii) His interest and share in D.C Anand and Sons. However, plaintiffs are not aware of other properties, assets which may have been possessed and left by him and the plaintiffs call up defendants no. 1 to 4 disclose full particulars of all the property and assets left by him. Para 6 of the Amended plaint:- That in the same manner, late Shir Dharam Chand Anand was owner and possessed of the following properties: (i) Property bearing No. 1 Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. (ii) 25,000 shares in Gabriel India Ltd. (iii) 20,000 shares in Asia Investment. (iv) Jewellery, silver, gold, cash. (v) Share in HUF property in Kidar Cottage, Shimla including the moveable assets lying therein. (vi) Land bearing survey No. 304 and 305 Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, MuLand, Bombay. (vii) Provident Fund of Rs.70,000/- (viii) His interest and share in D.C Anand and Sons. However, plaintiffs are not aware of other properties, assets which may have been possessed and left by him and the plaintiffs call up defendants no. 1 to 4 disclose full particulars of all the property and assets left by him. (vii) Provident Fund of Rs.70,000/- (viii) His interest and share in D.C Anand and Sons. However, plaintiffs are not aware of other properties, assets which may have been possessed and left by him and the plaintiffs call up defendants no. 1 to 4 disclose full particulars of all the property and assets left by him. Para 6 of IA 2572/2003 filed by D-4 for transposition:- That the defendant No.4/applicant is filing the application only for the limited purpose of being transposed as a plaintiff along with plaintiff No.1 Mrs.Nirmal Sethi so that even if the plaintiff No.1 withdraws from the said suit, the same could be pursued by the present applicant/defendant No.4. Para 2 of the reply of D-4 to I.A. 8841/2005 filed by D- 1 to 3 under order VII Rule 11, CPC:- It is submitted that the plaintiff had earlier also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC being I.A. No. 1021/1993. However, the plaintiff had given up of the objection raised in the said application by not pressing the same. Though, no formal order was passed in the said application being I.A. No. 1021/1993, but in all respect, the said application is deemed to be decided as the objection raised by the defendants no. 1 to 3 were never pressed and the defendants no. 1 to 3 acknowledging the claims of the plaintiff has settled with them, and the same are duly recorded and decreed by this Honble Court. Therefore, since the present plaintiff had adopted the plaint filed by the erstwhile plaintiffs without any modification/amendment, the objections now raised by the defendants 1to 3 by way of the present application are not maintainable. The defendants no. 1 to 3 cannot and ought not be permitted to raise the same objections, which the said defendants had already given up. Para 4 of the rejoinder by the transposed plaintiff to the reply of D-1 to 3 in I.A. 1653/2005:- In respect to the contents of para 4, it is submitted that the plaintiff had adopted the plaint filed by the erstwhile plaintiff. It is wrong and denied that the present proceedings have become nonest, after transposition of defendant no. 1 as plaintiff. It is wrong to state that the case is different than what was pleaded earlier. The contents of para 4 of the application are reiterated. 20. It is wrong and denied that the present proceedings have become nonest, after transposition of defendant no. 1 as plaintiff. It is wrong to state that the case is different than what was pleaded earlier. The contents of para 4 of the application are reiterated. 20. For the purpose of deciding the present application, the aforesaid pleas of the respective parties have to be examined not only in the light of the averments made by the transposed plaintiff in the pleadings and various other applications filed on the record from time to time, but also in the context of the submissions made by the defendants No.1 to 3 with reference to the Mulund Land. 21. Before dealing with arguments of the parties, it is necessary to examine the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of the object of pleadings. In this context, reference to Order VI, which deals with pleadings generally, Order VII which deals with the plaint and Order VIII which deals with the written statement, set off and counter claim are relevant. The object and purpose of filing of the plaint, written statement, replication etc., collectively known as pleadings under Order VI of the CPC, is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In other words, the purpose of pleadings is to establish on record, the stands of the respective parties and to ensure that the plaint contains all the material particulars necessary to formulate a complete cause of action as envisaged in the Order VII Rule 1 to 3 CPC. The purpose of laying down the foundation of the case in the plaint is to ensure that when the defendants are called upon to respond, they are not caught unawares and are fully conscious of the stand taken by the plaintiff so that the same can be met effectively. [Refer: Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Sh.Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735 , Ramsarup Gupta Vs. Bishnu Narain Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1242 ] 22. The provisions of Order VIII CPC deal with the written statement, set off and counter claim to be filed to the plaint. In the written statement, the defendant is expected to put forth his defence to the plaint, pleading all matters which establish the suit not to be maintainable and specifically deny each allegation which he does not admit to be true. In the written statement, the defendant is expected to put forth his defence to the plaint, pleading all matters which establish the suit not to be maintainable and specifically deny each allegation which he does not admit to be true. Order VIII Rule 2 CPC shows the intention of the legislature when it mandates that the defendant must raise his pleadings and all matters which show the suit not to be maintainable or to establish that a transaction is void or voidable in point of law, and take all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint. Thus, the entire purpose of filing the pleadings is to ensure that the parties put forth their case by taking clear, categorical and unambiguous stands in respect of the essential material facts of their case and the defence available to them, separately and distinctly. Instead of placing unnecessary emphasis on form, the endeavour ought to be to look at the substance and ensure that the parties know each others case. .23. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the transposed plaintiff, prior to his transposition, in his capacity as defendant No.4, filed his written statement wherein, he took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the suit in respect of the Mulund Land. The relevant preliminary objection taken by defendant No.4 to the effect that he was allotted the Mulund Land in lieu of his share in the profits and other credits receivable from M/s Anand Automobiles in consideration of his retiring from the said partnership firm finds clear mention in his written statement. The aforesaid stand was taken by the defendant No.4 in the year 1992, when he filed the written statement. The said stand was consistently maintained by him till a situation arose when upon all the original plaintiffs having arrived at settlements with the defendants No.1 to 3, the said defendant No.4 filed an application seeking his transposition as a plaintiff. The said request was acceded to by the Court as recorded in the order dated 10.11.2004 24. The said stand was consistently maintained by him till a situation arose when upon all the original plaintiffs having arrived at settlements with the defendants No.1 to 3, the said defendant No.4 filed an application seeking his transposition as a plaintiff. The said request was acceded to by the Court as recorded in the order dated 10.11.2004 24. Prior to the compromise arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 3, the latter had also taken a stand in their common written statement that the Mulund Land came to the share of the defendant No.4 when he resigned from M/s Anand Automobiles and as a part of the settlement, he received the said partnership property in part consideration of his retiring from the partnership firm. The stand taken by the defendants No.1 to 3 in the written statement filed in April 1991, was reiterated by them in their common written statement filed in the year 1993, pursuant to the plaintiffs filing the amended plaint. This time, the defendants No.1 to 3 further elaborated their stand in respect of the Mulund Land by adding paras 8 and 9 to their preliminary objections and categorically stating therein that the defendant No.4 had retired from the partnership firm M/s Anand Automobiles and had relinquished and declared that he had no interest in the lands and assets of the said firm and similarly, defendants No.1 to 3 had given up interest in another company known as Asia Automobiles and the land at Mulund. It was also stated by the defendants No.1 to 3 that the defendant No.4 had received possession of the Mulund Land pursuant to the division/settlement with the defendants No.1 to 3. 25. It was also stated by the defendants No.1 to 3 that the defendant No.4 had received possession of the Mulund Land pursuant to the division/settlement with the defendants No.1 to 3. 25. Next came the stage when the original plaintiffs on the record, arrived at a compromise with their brothers, namely, defendants No.1 to 3 which came to be recorded in the joint applications filed by them from time to time, being IAs No.4441/97, 4699/97, 8861/99 and 7583/2004 Para 16(o) in the aforesaid applications, as reproduced hereinabove, finds mention in each of the aforesaid applications wherein the plaintiffs admitted that the Mulund Land on which they had laid a claim in the plaint, was purchased/owned and held by M/s Anand Automobiles and on the resignation of their father, Sh.D.C.Anand from the said partnership firm, the Mulund Land went to the share of defendant No.4 as part of the settlement of the aforesaid partnership property. In fact, a careful reading of para 16(o) of the compromise applications and para 6(vi) of the written statement filed by the defendants No. 1 to 3 shows that the same is identically worded. .26. In the year 2001 itself, the defendants No.1 to 3 preferred an application, being IA No.9423/2001 wherein they mentioned the fact that that the original plaintiffs had arrived at a settlement in respect of their disputes with them and the same was duly recorded by the Court by various orders and thus, the suit was pending between the transposed plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 alone. They went on to point out the preliminary objection taken by them in their written statement to the effect that the original plaintiffs had erroneously included in para 6(vi) of their plaint, the Mulund Land which was the property and assets of M/s Anand Automobiles and had gone to the share of transposed plaintiff upon his retirement from the partnership firm as his share. It was also stated that the inclusion of the said land by the original plaintiffs was misconceived and erroneous and that the said land could not have been included in the assets of late Sh.D.C.Anand or .his wife, Smt.C.K.Anand. Thus, a prayer was made for modification of the status quo order dated 22.8.1990 in so far as it related to the Mulund Land. Thus, a prayer was made for modification of the status quo order dated 22.8.1990 in so far as it related to the Mulund Land. Incidentally, the prayer of the transposed plaintiff in the present application is identical to the prayer made by the defendants No.1 to 3 in IA No.9423/2001. 27. However, the story does not stop here. After the defendant No.4 was transposed as a plaintiff in the present proceedings, he filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, registered as IA No.1653/2005 seeking a decree on admissions made by the defendants No.1 to 3 regarding the Mulund Land. Para 4 of the said application refers to the order of transposition passed on 10.11.2004 and states that the applicant had adopted the plaint filed by the erstwhile plaintiffs with a slight modification to the effect that the Mulund Land was the property of M/s Anand Automobiles, a partnership firm and not forming part of the estate of late Sh.D. C. Anand. The aforesaid application was replied to by the defendants No.1 to 3 vide reply filed on 29.10.2005 wherein, in para 15, they referred to the Mulund Land and stated that the transposed plaintiff on his retirement from the partnership firm, M/s Anand Automobiles was allotted the assets and property of the said firm to the exclusion of the other partners which included the Mulund Land and further asserted that the plaintiff had taken over the said Mulund property and that the defendants had signed all the documents which they were called upon to execute, for transferring the same in his name. .28. Seen in the aforesaid perspective, the stands of the parties are crystal clear and everything falls in place. It has to be held that as far as defendants No. 1 to 3 are concerned, their consistent stand throughout the suit proceedings has been that the Mulund Land was given to the transposed plaintiff in consideration of his retiring from M/s Anand Automobiles and that possession thereof was also with him. Similarly, the stand of the defendant no. 4 in his written statement was also the same. Similarly, the stand of the defendant no. 4 in his written statement was also the same. However, the defendants No. 1 to 3 now seek to take advantage of the fact that when the defendant No.4 was transposed as a plaintiff in the present proceedings, he chose to adopt the plaint filed by the original plaintiffs, wherein the Mulund Land was mentioned as one of the properties in which the original plaintiffs had claimed that all the children of late Sh.D.C.Anand and Smt.C.K.Anand were entitled to a share to the extent of 1/10th each. Reference made by the defendants No. 1 to 3 to para 6 of IA No.2572/2003 filed by the defendant No.4 for seeking his transposition as a co-plaintiff in the suit, para 2 of the reply filed by the defendant No.4 to IA No.8841/2005 filed by defendants no. 1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order XII Rule VI, CPC to the effect that the transposed plaintiff had adopted the plaint filed by the erstwhile plaintiffs without any modification and para 4 of the rejoinder by the transposed plaintiff to the reply filed by the defendants No. 1 to 3 to IA No.1653/2005 filed under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC, reiterating that he had adopted the plaint filed by the erstwhile plaintiffs, have to be examined and understood in the aforesaid context and not in isolation. When so examined, it is apparent that the transposed plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 to 3 are ad idem in respect of the status of the Mulund Land, which is that the same was wrongly included by the original plaintiffs in the list of immovable properties left by late Sh. D.C. Anand and that the said land had fallen to the share of the transposed plaintiff when he retired from the partnership firm, M/s Anand Automobiles. The defendants No. 1 to 3 by insisting on the fact that the transposed plaintiff had adopted the original plaint, without any modification and hence the status quo order in respect of the Mulund Land ought not to be modified, are only clutching at straws in the wind. 29. The aforesaid plea, on the face of it is misconceived. The defendants No. 1 to 3 by insisting on the fact that the transposed plaintiff had adopted the original plaint, without any modification and hence the status quo order in respect of the Mulund Land ought not to be modified, are only clutching at straws in the wind. 29. The aforesaid plea, on the face of it is misconceived. Just as the defendants No. 1 to 3 have been consistent in their written statement and the averments made in the applications filed by them and their replies to other applications, with regard to the status of the Mulund Land, similarly, the transposed plaintiff has also remained consistent in his stand throughout the suit proceedings that the Mulund Land belonged to him and could not have been included by the original plaintiffs in the present suit. To insist that the old pleadings in his written statement cannot be carried by the original defendant no. 4 after being transposed as a plaintiff, is carrying things beyond a logical point. Similarly, the plea of the defendants no. 1 to 3 that in the absence of seeking further amendment in the plaint, the prayer made in the present application cannot be allowed, is also not acceptable. Merely because an application filed by the transposed plaintiff, seeking amendment of the original plaint is pending, does not mean that the relief sought by the plaintiff in the present application cannot be granted or has to await a decision of the aforesaid pending application. This is more so when similar relief has been sought by the defendants No. 1 to 3 in their application, being IA No.9423/2001 which is pending. Whatever be the fate of the said application, the defendants admission contained therein cannot be swept under the carpet. 30. Reliance placed by the counsel for the plaintiff on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Veerabhadrappa (supra) is well founded as undoubtedly, a meaningful reading of the written statement as filed by defendant no. 4 prior to his transposition as a plaintiff, is necessary. 30. Reliance placed by the counsel for the plaintiff on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Veerabhadrappa (supra) is well founded as undoubtedly, a meaningful reading of the written statement as filed by defendant no. 4 prior to his transposition as a plaintiff, is necessary. Even in the case of Durga Prasad (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 3, the Patna High Court observed that in a suit for partition, the plaintiff is not wholly dominus litus and the plaintiff cannot defeat the exercise of option to have partition by the other defendants by resorting to the device of withdrawing the suit, and there being an affinity and identity of interest in a suit for partition, even if the plaintiff does not wish to prosecute the suit or to withdraw it, the defendant or defendants can ask for being transposed to the array of plaintiff to have his share partitioned. The only condition imposed for transposition is that the character of the suit may not be altered and the party sought to be transposed, adopts the plaintiffs case. 31. In the present case, the character of the suit remains unaltered. Further, the stand of the transposed plaintiff to the effect that the Mulund Land came to his share after the family settlement in respect of the partnership firm M/s Anand Automobiles has all along been clear, consistent and unshakable. The stand sought to be taken by the defendants No. 1 to 3 now that they are in possession of the Mulund Land is falsified by their own admissions in their reply to I.A. No. 1653/2005, as indicated in para 18 hereinabove. If the stand of the transposed plaintiff, with regard to the HUF or the estate of Late Sh. D.C. Anand, in CS(OS) No. 1253/2006 is different from the stand taken by him in the present proceedings, as alleged by the defendants no. 1 to 3, then the same shall be a subject matter of consideration in the said proceedings. But for the purpose of deciding the present application, the scope of examination is fairly limited. 32. The defence taken by the defendants no. 1 to 3, then the same shall be a subject matter of consideration in the said proceedings. But for the purpose of deciding the present application, the scope of examination is fairly limited. 32. The defence taken by the defendants no. 1 to 3 to the effect that they are not bound by the statements made by the original plaintiffs in the compromise applications in respect of the Mulund Land is also misconceived and liable to be rejected for the reason that the defendants No. 1 to 3 were parties to the aforesaid compromise applications and are equally bound by the terms and conditions as stated in the settlement agreement. Decrees passed on the basis of the aforesaid compromise applications also bind the signatories thereto, i.e. both, the original plaintiffs and the defendants no. 1 to 3. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants No. 1 to 3 to turn around and state that the transposed plaintiff cannot take advantage of the averments made in para 16(o) of the compromise applications filed by the original plaintiffs jointly with the defendants No.1 to 3. 33. The plea of the counsel for the defendants no. 1 to 3 to the effect that the old pleadings in the written statement cannot be carried by the plaintiff after being transposed and in the absence of seeking any amendment to the plaint, is answered by the fact that even if its is assumed that the defendant no. 4, on being transposed, could not have carried with him any old baggage and was under an obligation to adopt the stand taken by the original plaintiffs in the plaint, the said transposed plaintiff could have picked up the threads of litigation only from the point at which they were left by the original plaintiffs. The said threads lead us to the point when the original plaintiffs chose to step out of the proceedings by burying the hatchet with the defendants no. 1 to 3, arriving at a settlement with them and filing joint applications of compromise. In the said applications, to which the defendants no. 1 to 3 were also signatories, the original plaintiffs accepted the stand as taken by the defendants no. 1 to 3 in their written statement that the Mulund Land went to the share of defendant no. 4. In the said applications, to which the defendants no. 1 to 3 were also signatories, the original plaintiffs accepted the stand as taken by the defendants no. 1 to 3 in their written statement that the Mulund Land went to the share of defendant no. 4. Hence, there is a clear identity of thought, which is borne out by the identity of language used in para 16(o) of all the compromise applications as used in para 6 (vi) of the written statement filed by defendants no. 1 to 3. 34. This Court must also not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of passing the ex parte status quo order on 22.8.1990 was to preserve the properties claimed by the original plaintiffs as belonging to their deceased parents, in which they laid a stake to the extent of 1/10th share each. Much water has flown under the bridge ever since. Taking into consideration the subsequent events which have unfolded themselves over the passage of time, the transposed plaintiff is well within his right to seek modification of the said status quo order, by seeking exclusion of the Mulund Land, the status of which is not in dispute between the parties. The twists and turns of events that have occurred over a span of eighteen years, as indicated above, cannot be brushed aside on the plea of the defendants no. 1 to 3 that the transposed plaintiff having stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiffs and having adopted the plaint as filed by them, cannot seek modification of the status quo order. The said approach, to say the least, is hyper technical and not acceptable. Changed circumstances cannot be wished away or ignored in this manner. .35. The status quo order has to be examined in the light of the current position as gleaned from the record, and not on the basis of a disjointed reading of the pleadings and the averments of the transposed plaintiff alone, as asserted by the defendants no. 1 to 3. A collective reading of the pleadings on the record, not only of the original plaintiffs and the transposed plaintiff, but also the defendants no. 1 to 3 leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the ex-parte status quo order dated 22.8.1990 requires to be modified by excluding the Mulund Land from the said order. 36. 1 to 3. A collective reading of the pleadings on the record, not only of the original plaintiffs and the transposed plaintiff, but also the defendants no. 1 to 3 leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the ex-parte status quo order dated 22.8.1990 requires to be modified by excluding the Mulund Land from the said order. 36. For the foregoing reasons, the present application has to be allowed. The application is accordingly disposed of by directing that the Mulund Land stands excluded from the ex-parte status quo order dated 22.8.1990, which order shall continue to operate in respect of the other properties, subject matter of the suit.