JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.05.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') upon an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by defendant No.6 - Sulochna Singhal - respondent No.2, herein, in a suit for partition and cancellation of gift deed filed by the Surendra Agarwal and Sulochna Singhal - respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. 2. The petitioner No.1 in the present petition was impleaded as defendant No.3, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 being daughter and son of Late Shri Narendra Kumar Agarwal were impleaded as defendants No.4 and 5. 3. During pendency of the suit aforesaid, an application dated 08.09.2016 came to be filed by defendant No.6 - Smt. Sulochana Singhal inter alia contending that she be transposed as plaintiff No.2. The present petitioners opposed the transposition of Sulochana Singhal as plaintiff. The trial Court, however, allowed said application and transposed her (defendant No.6) as plaintiff No.2. 4. Challenging the order dated 16.05.2019, passed by the trial Court, Mr. Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the defendant No.6 could not be transposed as plaintiff No.2 by the trial Court, inasmuch as she was daughter of defendant No.1 - Late Shri Pooranmal Agarwal and thus, did not have any right of seeking partition of the alleged joint hindu property and/or ancestral property. 5. It was argued that the suit in question involves not only the ancestral property of Pooranmal Agarwal, but also certain property which was not ancestral in nature. 6. Heard. 7. Indisputably, the suit in question is a suit for partition, in which all the plaintiffs and defendants are treated equal and they can contest as plaintiff and/or defendant. 8. Hence, without expressing any opinion about the right of the concerned applicant namely Sulochana Singhal, who has been transposed as plaintiff No.2, vis-a-vis the plaintiff and codefendants (petitioners), this Court does not find any error of jurisdiction or of law warranting interference in view of restrictions on interference carved out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 . 9. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 10. The stay application is also dismissed.