Common questions of law and fact arise in these eight revisions. Hence they are heard and disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in the suits.

2. O.S.Nos.928, 929, 930 and 931 of 2007 are filed by different plaintiffs, against common defendants, in the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. M/s Totem Projects Private Limited, figured as 3rd plaintiff in all the suits. The relief of specific performance of agreements of sale in respect of various items of immovable property and other consequential reliefs are prayed for. The plaints were initially presented on the day, on which the Courts reopened; after summer vacation viz., 02-06-2007. They were returned with certain objections. By the time the plaints were represented, it appears that transactions in respect of the suit schedule properties have taken place. Therefore subsequent purchasers were included in the array of parties, while re-presenting the plaints. Mention was also made to the subsequent developments in detail. The suits were ultimately numbered, some time in September, 2007.

3. 1st defendant, in all the suits, by name, Burupally Sivarama Krishna, on the one hand, and defendants 3 to 10 in all the suits, on the other hand, filed I.A.Nos.3326, 3327 and 3330 to 3335 of 2007, under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the respective plaints. According to them, the suits are not maintainable in law, or on facts, and all of them are barred by limitation. The relevant facts touching upon the execution of agreements of sale, and the developments that have taken subsequent thereto were stated, in detail. It was urged that though the plaints were presented on 02-06-2007, which is the last date of limitation for filing the suits, they were represented long thereafter, with altogether different set of facts. According to them, the plaints, that were presented on 02-06-2007, on the one hand, and those, which ultimately came to be numbered, on the other hand, are totally different in purport and content. It was also urged that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and subsequent purchasers, on the other hand, in the respective suits.

4. The plaintiffs opposed the applications by filing counters. According to them, the suits were filed on the re-opening day, after summer vacation, and they were within the period of limitation. It was pleaded that the necessity to plead further facts and to add defendant Nos.10 onwards in all the suits arose, on account of execution of sale deeds by the defendants 1 and 2, in their favour.

5. Through separate, but similar orders dated 22-09-2008, the trial Court dismissed all the applications. Hence, these eight civil revision petitions.

6. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, Sri H. Venugopal, and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants submit that the suits are barred by limitation and the respective plaints were liable to be rejected. They contend that the plaints filed on 02-06-2007 do not comply with the requirements of pleadings under Orders VI and VII C.P.C., and in that view of the matter, there was no effective presentation of the suits on that date as contemplated under Rule I of Order IV C.P.C. Learned counsel submit that, once the plaints were not numbered and returned on the last day of limitation, i.e., 02-06-2007, the subsequent steps do not have the effect of bringing the suits within limitation.

7. They further submit that it was totally impermissible for the plaintiffs to add defendant Nos.10 onwards, in each suit, except by filing applications under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., much less to add paragraphs to the returned plaints, otherwise than by filing applications under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. They relied upon certain decided cases.

8. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that plai