S. Sankarasubban, J.

This Writ Petition has been posted before us on the basis of a reference order passed on 17th May, 2004. The Writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Court below, which is produced as Ext.P3 is the order passed in two I.As., viz., i.a.nos. 2583 and 3184 of 2003. While I.A.No. 3184 of 2003 was filed by the first plaintiff, I.A.No. 2583 of 2003 was filed by the second plaintiff.

2. The suit was filed for partition. There are seven plaintiffs in the suit. According to the first plaintiff, he is entitled to get 1/4 share and the other plaintiffs together are entitled to 1/4 share. Defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to get 1/2 share. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have filed the applications contending that it is not possible for them to continue as plaintiffs because of a dispute which has arisen among the plaintiffs. They want to get their shares separately and hence, they applied for transposing them as defendants. The Court below has considered this matter. According to the Court below, for getting their own shares, it is not necessary to transpose the plaintiffs as defendants. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 engaged different counsel. Hence, even without transposing, a decree can be passed.

3. When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that the plaintiffs cannot get an order to transpose them as defendants. The decision in Narayanan v. Manjadimoodu Coir Co-operative Society, 1985 KLT 893 was cited. It was argued that a co-plaintiff cannot be allowed to transpose him as a defendant, since there is no provision enabling such transposition. Learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Saila Bala v. Nirmala Sundari, AIR 1958 SC 394, and Madanappa v. Chandramma, AIR 1965 SC 1812, and argued that the principles laid down in Narayanan's case requires reconsideration. It is on this basis that the reference has come before us.

4. In Narayanan v. Manjadimoodu Coir Co-operative Society, 1985 KLT 893, this Court held as follows: "A party who has got a cause of action can file a suit and get his relief through Court. Parties whose causes of action are identical can file separate suits even if they raise out of the same transaction and the relief is claimed against the same party. But 0.1, R.1 permits the filing of a single suit by all such parties. .That does not mean that if circumstances change separate trials cannot be bad in such a suit. In fact, 0.1, R.2 provides for that. The only condition is that it should appear to the Court that the joinder of plaintiffs, may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit. Separate trial is the only way out. No question of transposing a plaintiff as defendant arises as it is impossible. The Code only permits the transposing of a defendant as a plaintiff and that too only under certain circumstances".

In R.S. Maddanappa v. Chandramma & Ann, AIR 1965 SC 1812, it was observed as follows:

"Now regarding the second point, this objection is purely technical. The plaintiff sued for partition of the suit properties upon the ground that they were inherited jointly by her and by the first defendant and claimed possession of her share from the other defendants who were wrongfully in possession of the properties. She also alleged that the first defendant did not cooperate in the matter and so she had to institute the suit. The first defendant admitted the plaintiff s title to half share in the properties and claimed a decree also in her own favour to the extent of the remaining half share in the properties. She could also have prayed for her transposition as a co-plaintiff and under 0.1, R.10(2) C.P.C. the Court could have transposed her as a co-plaintiff. The power under this provision is exercisable by the Court even suo mote. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Bhupendra v. Raneswar, 58 Ind App 228 (AIR 1931 PC 162), the power ought to be exercised by a Court fordoing complete justice between the parties. Here both the plaintiff and the first defendant claim