The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.31 of 2008 in the Court of II-Additional District Judge, Guntur against the petitioners herein for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial of the suit is said to have been concluded. The respondents filed I.A.No.707 of 2011 by invoking Order 1 Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to implead the respondents 2 to 13 as plaintiffs 2 to 13 in the suit and to permit them to amend the plaint in several respects including the prayer in the suit. The petitioners opposed the I.A. by raising several objections. According to them, the 1st respondent filed interlocutory applications on earlier occasions to implead the respondents 2 to 13 in different batches and even when they were pending enquiry, on the objections raised by them, the 1st respondent has withdrawn the same. They also raised objections as to the maintainability of the application filed for impleading the respondents 2 to 13 as the plaintiffs and for clubbing of various reliefs. Other objections were also raised. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 18.01.2012. Hence, this revision.

Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the application filed by the respondents herein was totally misconceived and untenable in law. He contends that the relief claimed in the I.A. was under different provisions, which are totally unconnected with each other, and still the trial Court allowed the I.A. Learned counsel further submits that in case the respondents 2 to 13 wanted any relief in the form of declaration of title and recovery of possession, they have to file separate suits and there was no basis for them to claim separate and individual reliefs, in respect of different plots. He contends that several aspects, such as limitation, court fee and the conditions stipulated in Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, arise and the lower court did not address any of them.

Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the necessity to file the application has arisen on account of the objections raised by the petitioners that the 1st respondent is no longer owner of the suit schedule property. He contends that the 1st respondent, a Society, has since executed the sale deeds in favour of its members i.e., respondents 2 to 13 and in that view of the matter, an application was filed to implead the respondents 2 to 13 as the plaintiffs and for the necessary reliefs.

It has already been observed that in I.A.No.707 of 2011, the respondents have invoked Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on the one hand and Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the other hand.

It is not uncommon that applications are filed to implead strangers, as parties to the suit. However, filing of an application to implead an individual as the plaintiff is almost a rarity. It would be possible only when an individual who does not have any independent identity, but is sailing with the plaintiffs in all respects and is not claiming any individual claims. In such an extent he can be impleaded as plaintiff, that too at his request.

In certain cases, in addition to the plaintiffs, who were already on record, some of the defendants may be transposed as the plaintiffs or the third parties also can be added as plaintiffs. Wherever such steps are taken, no independent relief can be claimed on behalf of the persons who were newly added as the plaintiffs. They must sail with the existing plaintiffs on record. In this case, however, separate reliefs are sought to be claimed on behalf of each of the persons sought to be added as the plaintiffs. For all practical purposes, if each plaintiff, who is sought to be added, will be claiming individual and independent relief for him, the question of limitation, court fee and other aspects would arise.

Coming to the relief claimed in terms of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there was a serious infirmity in the application. It is only the 1st plaintiff who could have sough