ORDER : The petitioner, defendant in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 94 of 2000, is aggrieved of order dated 11.08.2010 by which plaintiff no. 2 has been transposed as performa defendant on an application filed by the plaintiff no. 2 under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC. 2. Plea raised by the petitioner is that Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC does not permit transposition of a plaintiff as defendant. 3. Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC provides that at any stage of the suit the plaintiff may abandon the suit against all or any of the defendant or abandon whole or part of his claim against one or several defendants. Rule 1-A to Order XXIII CPC provides that when the plaintiff abandons or withdraws the suit, on an application of the defendant if the Court forms an opinion that a substantial question in respect to one or other defendants is required to be decided, the defendant may be transposed as a plaintiff in the suit. One of the grounds for transposition of a defendant as plaintiff is affinity of interest between the plaintiff and the defendant. A similar analogy shall be applicable in case of transposition of a plaintiff as a defendant. In a case where interest of a plaintiff if found sailing along with one or more defendants, or one or more plaintiffs support the claim of the defendant such a plaintiff is then required to be transposed as a defendant. 4. In Title (Eviction) Suit No. 94 of 2000 which was initially instituted by Arun Kumar Das, on an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC Damodar Prasad Singh was added as plaintiff no. 2. The petitioner is defendant in the suit. The order by which Damodar Prasad Singh has been added as plaintiff no. 2 has attained finality. He has been added as plaintiff no. 2 on the basis of right flowing to him through sale deed dated 30.04.2003. Now, in the above facts transposition of plaintiff no. 1 as performa-defendant would not cause any prejudice to the defendant. Plea taken by the defendant that on transposition of plaintiff no. 1 the suit must fail is without substance. Plaintiff no. 2 who has now acquired the suit property is there to prosecute the suit. In fact transposition of plaintiff no. 1 as performa-defendant would not cause any prejudice to the defendant. Plea taken by the defendant that on transposition of plaintiff no. 1 the suit must fail is without substance. Plaintiff no. 2 who has now acquired the suit property is there to prosecute the suit. In fact transposition of plaintiff no. 1 as proforma-defendant in the suit is of no consequence, for he is not contesting against the claim of plaintiff no. 2. 5. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.08.2010 the writ petition is dismissed.