Judgment S.Roy, J. 1. Relief in suit have been prayed by the petitioner plaintiff No. 2 opposite party No. 29th-plaintiff No. 1, opposite party No 30plaintiff No. 3 and opposite patty No. 31-plaintiff No. 4 against opposite party No. 1 defendant No. 1. The aforesaid opposite parties have appeared. The dispute is now inter se plaintiffs. It is not necessary to hear other opposite parties for passing final order in these civil revision applications. I beard the learned Counsel at length and both the cases are disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The relief prayed for in the suit is for declaration that plaintiff Nos. I to 3 are the respective heads of the three schools, mentioned in the plaint, situated in Lodipur, Patna and recognised by the Stale Government, and they cannot be disturbed by order dated 9-2-1955, alleged to have been passed by the executive committee of opposite party No. I nor by resolution of the council of that committee alleged to have passed between 6th February, 1986 to 8th February, 1986. Relief also prayed for declaration that the managing committee of fie three schools consisting of defendant Nos. 9 to 17 and plaintiff No. 1 to 3 is the only legal and valid committee of the schools concerned. 3. It will thus be noticed that no relief has been prayed in favour of plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5. Plaintiff No. 5 was transposed as defendant. 4. Order I, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C. for short) pro-vides-who may join as plaintiffs. Five persons joined together to file the suit as plaintiffs because of the fact that the relief arose of the basis of common cause of action. If common Clause of action arose when the suit was filed, there should be any situation where there may be conflict in the interest of the persons who have joined as plaintiffs. 5. The plaintiffs had joined together challenging the authority of opposite party No. 1. The definite case in the plaint is that opposite party No. 1 had no jurisdiction or power to interfere with the management and control of the three schools. It appears that Rev. M.V. Thomos was examined as P.W. 2 and he is his examination-in-chief stated that all the three schools are owned by opposite party No. 1. It is surely against the pleadings and relief prayed for in the plaint. It appears that Rev. M.V. Thomos was examined as P.W. 2 and he is his examination-in-chief stated that all the three schools are owned by opposite party No. 1. It is surely against the pleadings and relief prayed for in the plaint. I am informed that there are two sets of lawyers, one for petitioner-plaintiff No. 2, and other for opposite party Nos. 29, 30 and 31 plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 respectively. P.W. 2 was examined-in-chief by the lawyer representing the opposite parties 29, 30 and 31. At the time when the suit was filed, there was unity of interest among the plaintiffs and they joined together, but as the facts stand today, they does not exist any more. 6. Further facts to be noticed is that the petitioner alone filed an application for amendment of plaint. He also filed an application to allow him to cross-examine P.W. 2. The Court below refused both the prayer on 4-2-1991. 7. The challenge of the petitioner in C.R. No. 213 of 1991 is to that part of the order of the Court below dated 4-2-1991 by which it refused the prayer of the petitioner to allow her to amend the plaint. 8. It was submitted that it was necessary to amend the plaint to bring on record the subsequent events. In view of the fact that there are four plaintiffs, the amendment of the plaint cannot be made at the instance of one of the plaintiffs. In my opinion, the Court below was correct in refusing the prayer of the petitioner, one of the plaintiffs, to allow her to amend the plaint. 9. So far C.R. No. 269 of 1991 is concerned, subject-matter of challenge is with regard to that part of the order dated 4-2-1991 by which the petitioner has been refused permission to cross-examine P.W. 2. 10. Under Sec. 154 of the Evidence Act, Court may allow a party to cross-examine his own witness under certain circumstances. But that does not appear to be the situation. P.W. 2 was not examined as a witness on behalf of all the plaintiffs, rather on behalf Nos. 1, 3 and 4. This situation does not attract Sec. 154. Although some plaintiffs now have taken stand which is adverse to other plaintiff, none of the plaintiffs have prayed for transposing other plaintiffs as defendants. P.W. 2 was not examined as a witness on behalf of all the plaintiffs, rather on behalf Nos. 1, 3 and 4. This situation does not attract Sec. 154. Although some plaintiffs now have taken stand which is adverse to other plaintiff, none of the plaintiffs have prayed for transposing other plaintiffs as defendants. For the subsequent events, Order I, Rule 1, C.P.C. is no more available. 11. Whether the evidence of P.W. 2 may be accepted or not is for the trial Court to determine. In my opinion, a case where there are more plaintiffs than, one plaintiff who wants to lead evidence contrary to the pleadings and the relief prayed for cannot be allowed to continue as plaintiff and shall have to be transposed as defendant. No provision of C.P.C. was brought to my notice to show that if this procedure is adopted, it shall be contrary to any specific provision of C.P.C. No. decision contrary was cited at the Bar. Court can and when situation arises must find out procedure for advancement of justice. 12. It is, therefore, ordered that if any of the plaintiffs lead evidence contrary to the pleadings and relief prayed for in the plaint, the Court below shall transpose such plaintiff as defendant. 13. The civil revision applications are disposed of with the above observations and directions.