JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. - The instant petition is filed to laciniate the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhadrak in C.S.No.43 of 1999-I, whereby and where under, the learned trial court allowed the application of defendant no.13 for transposition to the position of plaintiff. 2. One Rama Chandra Ojha filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession along with the defendants 11 to 19, for declaration that the Consolidation Record of Right is wrong and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 10 from disturbing his possession in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhadrak, which was registered as C.S.No. 43 of 1999-I. Opposite party no. 1 was defendant no.13 and the present petitioners were the contesting defendants no. 1 to 10 except the defendant no.6. During pendency of the suit, defendant nos.6 and 16 died and due to non-substitution, the suit has abated against them on 3.10.2002. Similarly, during pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died on 2.11.2002 leaving behind his widow and daughters. After the death of the plaintiff, his legal heirs did not take steps for their substitution. But then defendant no.13 filed an application for transposition as plaintiff on 1.2.2003. He had also filed another application for substitution of the legal heirs of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 10 filed an objection to the same. By order dated 18.8.2004, the learned trial court allowed the application of defendant no.13 and transposed him as plaintiff. 3. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. 4. The sole question that hinges for consideration of this Court is as to whether application for transposition of defendant no.13 as plaintiff can be allowed when the suit had abated ? 5. The Court may transpose the defendant as plaintiff in exercise of its power under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 C.P.C.. 4. The sole question that hinges for consideration of this Court is as to whether application for transposition of defendant no.13 as plaintiff can be allowed when the suit had abated ? 5. The Court may transpose the defendant as plaintiff in exercise of its power under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 C.P.C.. The same is quoted hereunder:- "(2) Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 6. What is the meaning of the words "at any stage of the proceedings" appearing in Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. ? At any stage of the proceedings means during pendency of the suit. Power under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 C.P.C. can be exercised, if the proceedings are alive and pending. When the suit has abated and is no longer pending, application for transposition under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. filed by the defendant no.13 as plaintiff is not maintainable. 7. The sole plaintiff died on 2.11.2012 leaving behind his widow and daughters. No application for substitution was filed within the stipulated period. The suit had abated. Thereafter, defendant no.13 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. for transposition as plaintiff. In view of the fact that the suit had abated and was no longer pending, the learned trial court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in allowing the application for transposition. 8. In wake of the aforesaid, the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Bhadrak in C.S.No.43 of 1999-I is quashed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed