Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. These two writ petitions having common question of law were beard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In C. W. J. C. No.1406 of 1982, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the entire proceedings of. Batai Case no.700 of 1978-79/576 of 1979-80 including the final order dated 8th December, 1981 passed by the respondent No.1 as also the entire proceeding before the batai Board. In C. W. J. C. No.1407 of 1982 the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Batai Case No.699 of 1978-79/575 of (979-80 including the final order dated 8-12-1981 passed by the respondent No. I as also the entire proceeding of Batai Board. 3. In both these writ petitions the private respondents have filed joint application before the respondent No.1 for constitution of a Batai Board in terms of Sec.48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter called the act ). 4. According to the learned counsel such a joint application is not maintainable inasmuch as in the said application different persons had been claiming themselves to by under raiyats in respect of different parcels of land. Learned counsel submitted that in a case if such a joint application is held to be maintainable, in such an event one Board will have to be constituted for all the cases. Learned counsel further submitted that there may be different defences available to the landlord in respect of one or the other claims made by the bataidar and in such a situation it would not be possible for the Collector to constitute one Board for determining the different disputes against the parties. 5. Mr. J. P. Shukla, the learned Government Pleader No.1, on the other hand submitted the Sec.48-E of the Act is a self-contained Code and in the said provision there is no bar in liling of the joint application by different under raiyats. Learned counsel has further submitted that even in the rules framed under Sections 48-C and 48-E of the Act no such restriction has been imposed. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that even in the rules framed under Sections 48-C and 48-E of the Act no such restriction has been imposed. 6. However, having regard to the nature of the dispute as contemplated under Sec.48-E of the Act and having regard to the scheme and object thereof and the rules framed thereunder, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is correct. An application under Sec.48-E of the Act may be filed under different circumstances. Such an application is permissible when the under raiyats is threatened with unlawful ejectment from the tenancy or any portion thereof or if there is a dispute over (a) possession of the land (b) crop (c) produce thereof either on the ground of non- existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant or otherwise. 7. An application under Sec.48-E of the Act is also maintainable if the under raiyat is being or has been ejected from his tenancy or any portion thereof within 12 years from the commencement of the proceeding under the said Section in contravention of the provisions of Sec.89 thereof. 8. From a perusal of the aforementioned provision, therefor, it is abundantly clear that different circumstances may arise for filing an application by the under raiyat in terms of the aforementioned provisions. 9. Further, in this case the private respondents are not claiming to be the joint under raiyats in respect of one parcel of land ; rather they are claiming different parcels of land. Apparently, unless and until several persons can bring one action jointly in a case where several application if had been tiled, any common question of law and fact would not arise. Reference in this connection may be made to Order I, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a case, however, if it appears to the court that any joinder of the parties may embarrass or delay the trial of the case, the court may put the applicants to their election or order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient. 10. However, from the impugned order it does not appear that the respondent No. I addressed himself to this question as to whether in the exigencies of circumstances all the cases should have been jointly or separately tried. 11. 10. However, from the impugned order it does not appear that the respondent No. I addressed himself to this question as to whether in the exigencies of circumstances all the cases should have been jointly or separately tried. 11. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of and the respondent No.1 is, directed to apply his mind to this aspect of the matter and pass a fresh order for joint trial only if it is found and/or taking into consideration the principles analogous to Order I, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.