the transposition is not permissible under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, the court
cannot permit it in exercise of the inherent powers. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 deals with
a case where the suit is instituted in the name of a wrong person as the plaintiff or
when it is doubtful whether the suit was instituted in the name of the right person.
Sub-rule (2) deals with the situation when a party has been improperly joined. There
is no case for any of the parties in this case that the plaintiff was improperly joined or
that he is a wrong person. Counsel, who contended that inherent powers cannot be
invoked for this purpose, has cited the decision in Arjun Singh V. Mohindra Kumar
(AIR 1964 S.C. 993). The said decision, no doubt, says that inherent powers of the
court cannot override the express provisions of law. The relevant observations are
these: “if there are specific provisions of the Code dealing with a particular topic and
they expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the
court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter the inherent
powers of the court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by
the Code”. Neither Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code nor any other provision in the Code
deals with transposition of parties in a situation where one or more of the defendants
seek to be transposed as the plaintiffs or plaintiffs. In the absence of specific
provisions, the court can invoke inherent jurisdiction in appropriate cases when the
ends of justice demands it. The Supreme Court has held in Saila Bala V. Nirmala
Sundari (AIR 1958 S.C. 394) that the court can transpose an appellant as a
respondent in exercise of its inherent powers.