JUDGMENT : P. Somarajan, J. This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2015 in O.S. No.302/2010 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The suit was filed for getting a partition of the plaint schedule properties. The contention raised by the plaintiff is that, he is entitled to half share over the property. Defendants are the mother and other siblings of the plaintiff. Later on, the plaintiff went away from the suit when it was listed for trial. So, the lower court has allowed transposition of second defendant as additional second plaintiff and proceeded with the suit. The additional second plaintiff was allowed to give oral evidence as PW1 and on hearing both the parties, passed a preliminary decree, against which, this appeal is preferred. 3. Heard the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who entered appearance through learned counsel Sri. P.B. Krishnan. As far as respondent No.1 and 4, a paper publication was issued in the matter of condoning delay, but not turned up. On going through the impugned judgment prima facie it appears that the Lower Court has overlooked the principles governing transposition of a party. Order XXIII deals with the withdrawal and adjustment of suits. Order XXIII Rule 1A is extracted below for reference. "[1A. When transposition of defendants as plaintiffs may be permitted - Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under rule 1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under rule 10 of Order I, the Court shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants.]" [emphasis supplied] 4. The relevant portion of Rule 1 of Order XXIII is also extracted below for reference. "[1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim - (1) At any time after, the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim; Provided that ..... (2) .... (3) ..... "[1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim - (1) At any time after, the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim; Provided that ..... (2) .... (3) ..... (4) Where the plaintiff - (a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or (b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. (5) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorise the Court to permit one of several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw, under sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiffs.] 5. A mere reading of Rule 1A of Order XXIII would show that transposition of a defendant can be allowed only when the suit is withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff. So Rule 1A of Order XXIII deals with a situation wherein the original plaintiff or the plaintiffs, as the case may be, withdrawn or abandoned the suit. Rule 10 of Order I stands for the power of Court to substitute a party or to add a party in a suit, whenever the court thinks it just. Rule 10 of Order I enables the Court to strike out or add parties whenever the courts found it necessary for effective and complete adjudication of matter in dispute. Insofar as the power of Court under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, not separate application is necessary. But, whenever an application for transposement was made, a written application is necessary as per the mandate under Rule 1A of Order XXIII. Rule 1A of Order XXIII has to be read along with Rule 1 sub rule (4) and (5), which permit the plaintiff to abandon any suit either in part or in full with a condition that he shall thereafter be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter and such claim. Rule 1A of Order XXIII has to be read along with Rule 1 sub rule (4) and (5), which permit the plaintiff to abandon any suit either in part or in full with a condition that he shall thereafter be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter and such claim. Clause 5 of sub rule 1 of Order XXIII speaks about the abandonment of suit when there are several plaintiffs either in part or to withdraw the suit or any part of claim by any of the several plaintiffs without the consent of other plaintiffs. In other words, Rule 1A deals with a situation wherein the original plaintiff/plaintiffs withdrawn or abandoned the suit, as the case may be. In such a situation, it is permissible for any of the defendant to apply for transposement as a plaintiff in the suit. It really amounts to substituting one of the defendant or some of the defendants in the place of original plaintiff when the original suit was withdrawn or abandoned by the original plaintiff/plaintiffs. So it has two limbs. (1) withdrawal or abandonment of original suit by the plaintiff/plaintiffs. (2) substitution of some of the defendants in the place of original plaintiffs after the abandonment or withdrawal of the suit. Thereafter, the original plaintiff/plaintiffs who instituted the suit and abandoned or withdrawn subsequently would not be in the party array of the suit either as the original plaintiff or as a defendant. Because Rule 1A of Order XXIII permits only "substitution of one of the defendant or some of the defendants in the place of original plaintiff/plaintiffs". In short, Rule 1A of Order XXIII would come into play only when the original suit was fully and completely withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff/plaintiffs. Then the original plaintiff/plaintiffs would re-delegated to the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1, more specifically sub rule (4) and (5) and a fresh suit for the same cause of action in respect of the same subject matter would stand as hit by the prohibition under Sub rule (4) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII. 6. Then the original plaintiff/plaintiffs would re-delegated to the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1, more specifically sub rule (4) and (5) and a fresh suit for the same cause of action in respect of the same subject matter would stand as hit by the prohibition under Sub rule (4) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII. 6. It is quite permissible to transpose any of the defendant as a co-plaintiff with the consent of original plaintiffs, though it is outside the purview of Rule 1A of Order XXIII, but it is well within the purview of Rule 10 of Order I read with Order XXIII Rule 1(5) CPC. The principle behind it is that there cannot be a conflicting interest or conflicting issues between the plaintiff in a suit and there is no provision for either to decide or to adjudicate issues of difference between the original plaintiffs in a suit, and hence it demands either consent of the original plaintiff for transposition or the withdrawal or abandonment of suit by the original plaintiff. 7. Of course, there is no much difference in the status of plaintiff and defendant in a suit for partition. But, in so far as transposition is concerned, the very same rule is applicable invariably in all suit including a suit for partition. Going by the impugned decree and judgment, the original plaintiff still found a place in the party array of the suit and its cause title. On substitution of any of the defendant as plaintiff, the original plaintiff ceased to be a party to the suit. It is in effect withdrawal and abandonment of a suit instituted by the original plaintiff which has culminated in abandonment or withdrawal and the original plaintiff is precluded from instituting another suit for the same relief based on the same cause of action. When transposition is effected, the suit instituted by the original plaintiff would acquire the character of another suit instituted by the transposed plaintiff in all respect against the existing defendants. It is for avoiding multiplicity of the suit and unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit by issuance of notice to the parties concerned and such other things. Further that when there is transposition, it will save the period of limitation as the suit deemed to have been instituted by the transposed plaintiff as on the date of its institution. Further that when there is transposition, it will save the period of limitation as the suit deemed to have been instituted by the transposed plaintiff as on the date of its institution. If the transposed plaintiff wants to make the original plaintiff in the party array, they can resort to the remedy of impleadment as a co-defendant in that suit. So the legal position can be summarised as follows: (1) Rule 1A of Order XXIII would come into play only when the suit was fully or completely withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff. (2) Under Rule 1A of Order XXIII there is "a substitution of one of the defendant or some of the defendants in the place of original plaintiff/plaintiffs. (3) After the transposition under Rule 1A, the original plaintiff ceased to be a party to the suit as there is a complete substitution of some of the defendants as plaintiffs in the place of original plaintiffs. So after substitution (transposition) under Rule 1A of Order XXIII the original plaintiff would not be in the party array of the suit unless they were subsequently impleaded as a co-defendant by making proper application. (4) When the suit was withdrawn or abandoned by the original plaintiff, the original plaintiff is redelegated to the bar under Rule 1 (4) of Order XXIII and they are precluded from brining a fresh suit for the same cause of action and same subject matter. (5) It is permissible to transpose any of the defendant as a co-plaintiff in a suit without having withdrawing or abandoning the suit by the plaintiff, but it can be done only with the consent of original plaintiffs under Rule 10 of Order I and Rule 1(5) of Order XXIII CPC. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Decree and judgment of the lower court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the lower court on 15.12.2016. It is further directed that the lower court shall dispose of the suit after issuing fresh notice to the fourth respondent.