Judgment :- Kanchan Chakraborty, J: 1) The Challenge in this revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order no. 28 dated 2.3.2006 passed by Sri Sri Dharni Adhikary, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 7th Court at Alipore in Money Suit No. 12 of 2001 whereby the learned Court allowed the prayer for transposition of the pro-forma defendant to plaintiff no. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2) The petitioner/defendant, no.1, Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order on the grounds that the learned Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction according to law, acted illegally and with material irregularities and that it failed to appreciate the entire fact in its proper perspective. 3) The opposite party no. 1 Reckitt Benckisor (India) Ltd. instituted the Money Suit no. 12 of 2001 in the learned Court at Alipore against the petitioner praying for compensation and other reliefs. The opposite party no. 2 National Insurance Company limited was impleaded as made pro-forma defendant in the suit. The consignment in question was covered by a Marine Insurance policy under the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 1 realised the insurance claim from the opposite party no. 2 in terms of the Marine Insurance policy prior to institution of the suit and issued a letter of subrogation in favour of opposite party no. 2 transferring and abandoning its all actionable right and interest in favour of the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2, thus, was lawfully assigned to recover the compensation money from the petitioner/carrier jointly and/or severally along with the opposite party no. 1. So, after institution of the suit, the opposite party no. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for transposition of opposite party no. 2 (pro-forma defendant) to plaintiff no. 2. He also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code with another petition under Section 151 of the Code praying for necessary amendment. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 was opposed by the present petitioner who was the defendant no. 1/carrier of the consignment in question. 2 (pro-forma defendant) to plaintiff no. 2. He also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code with another petition under Section 151 of the Code praying for necessary amendment. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 was opposed by the present petitioner who was the defendant no. 1/carrier of the consignment in question. The petitioner in its written objection put much importance on the facts that the O.P. No. 1 (plaintiff) did not disclose the particulars as to when and in what manner it received the amount of claim from the pro-forma defendant (opposite party no. 2 herein). Further point taken by the petitioner in the written objection was that when the opposite party no. 1 realised the compensation for damage of consigned goods which was covered by a Marine Insurance policy under the opposite party no. 2 already before filing the suit, it lost its right to sue as plaintiff. 4) The matter was heard by the learned Court who was pleased to allow the prayer of transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5) Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said order this revisional application has been filed. It is to be noted that the petition filed by the opposite party under Order 6 Rule 17 and 151 Civil Procedure Code were not disposed of together with the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by the learned Court on 2.3.2006. 6) The point to be considered is whether the order passed by the learned Court is correct, legal and sustainable in law. 7) On careful perusal of the materials on record as well as the order under challenge, I find that there is no denial to the fact that the plaintiff, Reckitt Benckisor(India) Ltd. realised the loss of the damage from the National Insurance Company Ltd. because the consignment was covered by a Marine Insurance Policy under the National Insurance Company Ltd. and that a letter of subrogation was issued by it in favour of the National Insurance Company prior to institution of the suit. 8) Mr. Pradhymna Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made two fold contention. His First contention was that the learned Court should not have allowed the petition considering the fact that the plaintiff lost its right to sue when the suit was instituted. 8) Mr. Pradhymna Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made two fold contention. His First contention was that the learned Court should not have allowed the petition considering the fact that the plaintiff lost its right to sue when the suit was instituted. The second point raised by him was that a petition under Order 6 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein in the learned Court praying for an order directing the plaintiff to furnish better particulars which was not disposed of before the order under challenge was passed. 9) Before discussing the point raised by Mr. Sinha, it would be proper to look at the relevant provision of law. The order 1 Rule 10 starts with the heading “Suit in the name of wrong plaintiff.” Sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of order 1 says ----“Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such forms as the Court thinks just.” 10) A plain reading of the language of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code makes it abundantly clear that it provides for addition of party as plaintiff where it presupposes the filling of a suit by person not competent to do it but filed bonafide believing that he had such a right. It contemplates substitution or addition of a party as plaintiff if the Court is satisfied about the bona fide mistake. In other words, Sub Rule (1) applies to a suit filed by person legally entitle to do so, but where at a later stage necessary and proper party are sought to be added. 11) In the case in hand, the opposite party no. 1 filed the suit praying for compensation from the petitioner (defendant no.1) the Indian Roadways corporation limited for the damage of the materials under consignment. The opposite party no. 1 (plaintiff) impleaded National Insurance Company Limited as pro-forma defendant in the suit. 11) In the case in hand, the opposite party no. 1 filed the suit praying for compensation from the petitioner (defendant no.1) the Indian Roadways corporation limited for the damage of the materials under consignment. The opposite party no. 1 (plaintiff) impleaded National Insurance Company Limited as pro-forma defendant in the suit. But, it realised the loss from the pro-forma defendant, the Insurance Company because the consignment in question was covered by Marine Insurance policy. Therefore, it issued a letter of subrogation assigning all the valuable rights arising in favour of in the Insurance Company out of the consignment agreement for realisation of the money it paid to the opposite party no. 1 (plaintiff). It is clear from the facts above that the opposite party no. 1 instituted the suit obviously under wrong impression that the National Insurance Company was to be impleaded as a party without praying any relief, whatsoever, against it. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Code casts a duty on the Court to see that necessary parties are arrayed properly in the suit for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party no. 1 instituted the suit for compensation and other reliefs. So far as the relief for compensation is concerned, it wanted to transpose the International National Insurance Company Ltd. (pro-forma defendant), as the plaintiff no. 2. The opposite party no. 1 as plaintiff filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code in the learned Court praying for amendment of the plaint wherefrom it appears that it did not want to delete its name from the category of the plaintiff. This fact is going to suggest that the opposite party no. 1 prayed for some other reliefs besides the relief for compensation against the present petitioner. The opposite party no. 1 appears to be a bonafide plaintiff and was to be saved from being non suited merely on technical ground. The mistake it made at the time of institution of the suit was a genuine mistake which could be rectified under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The nature and character of the suit has not been altered because of transposition of the pro-forma defendant as plaintiff. In my considered opinion, I find that the question raised by Mr. The nature and character of the suit has not been altered because of transposition of the pro-forma defendant as plaintiff. In my considered opinion, I find that the question raised by Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel is not tenable. This appears to be a fit case where the provisions of Sub rule (1) rule 10 of order –I Civil Procedure Code are to be invoked. 12) As regards the second question raised by the Mr. Sinha is concerned, I reiterate that a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the opposite party no. I wherein all the information sought for by the petitioner were disclosed. That petition has not yet been disposed of. So, non-disposal of petition Under Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code did not cause prejudice to the present petitioner in any manner. 13) In the facts above, I find that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality and incorrectness. The order warrants no interference in this revision. 14) Accordingly, the revision application, thus, fails and is disposed of. No order as to cost is passed.