JUDGMENT By the impugned order the trial Court (III Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam), has rejected prayer of the applicant-plaintiffs (Nos. 1 to 3) made under Order I R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transpose plaintiff No. 4 Lilabai, the respondent No. 1 herein, as defendant or in alternative to order separate trials. The dispute pertains to certain agricultural lands. The plaintiffs who claimed title to the land represent two branches of their family. One branch is represented by the applicant-plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, while the other by applicant No. 3 and respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit). They claimed title to the lands through a common ancestor. During pendency of the suit it was discovered that co-plaintiff Lilabai, the respondent No. 1 had filed a separate suit against the State in respect of one of the Survey Nos. which are in dispute in the present suit. The said suit (No. 84-A/93) filed by co-plaintiff Lilabai was dismissed and the appeal filed by her against the decree of the trial Court was also dismissed. The other plaintiffs (applicant Nos. 1 to 3) on coming to know about the dismissal of the suit, made an application in the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC praying that plaintiff No. 4 may be transposed as defendant in the suit. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 23.10.1996. The applicants filed a revision before this Court against the above order which was registered as C.R. No. 1249/96. While the revision was still pending the applicants moved another application before the trial Court under Order I Rule 2 of CPC praying for transposition of plaintiff No. 4 as defendant or in alternative for separate trials. Their revision (C.R. No. 1249/96) was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn with the observation that the trial Court shall consider the matter (the application under Or. 1 R. 2) and pass appropriate orders without feeling fattered by the order impugned in the said revision. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application mainly on the premise that the prayer for transposition of plaintiff No. 4 as defendant has already been considered and rejected by the Court vide its order dated 23.10.1996. I have heard Shri R.C. Kochatta, learned counsel for the applicants and Ku. Madhu Bhatia, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application mainly on the premise that the prayer for transposition of plaintiff No. 4 as defendant has already been considered and rejected by the Court vide its order dated 23.10.1996. I have heard Shri R.C. Kochatta, learned counsel for the applicants and Ku. Madhu Bhatia, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. As already pointed out the trial Court rejected the application mainly on the ground that similar prayer had already been considered and rejected by the Court vide its order dated 23.10.1996. Sowever, while doing so the Court below not only ignored the observations made by this Court in its order dated 16.1.1996 passed in C.R. No. 1249/96 but also completely shut its eyes to the alternative prayer made for separate trials. Strictly speaking prayer for transposition of a party from plaintiff to defendant or vice - versa could be made under R. 10 of Or. I, not under R. 2. Rule 2 provides for order for separate trials. It provides that when it appears to the Court that any joinder or plaintiffs may embrace or delay the trial of the suit, the Court may put the plaintiffs to their election or order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient. In the instant case, the Court below seems to have totally ignored the prayer made by the plaintiffs for appropriate order under R. 2. So, even if the prayer for transposition of respondent No. 1 from plaintiff to defendant was unacceptable, the Court should have considered applicants' prayer for order of separate trials. There can be no denial of the fact that on account of separate suit being filed by respondent No. 1 and its adjudication in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 3, an anomalous situation has been created which may embrace the plaintiffs in the present suit. I refrain from making any further observation in the matter as I propose to remand the matter back to the trial Court for considering the plaintiffs' application in the light of the provision of R. 2 of Or. I of CPC. Suffice to say that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the applicants' prayer for separate trial, particularly in the light of the provision of Or. I R. 2 of CPC. In the result this revision succeeds and is allowed. I of CPC. Suffice to say that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the applicants' prayer for separate trial, particularly in the light of the provision of Or. I R. 2 of CPC. In the result this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.8.1997 is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the provision of Or. 1 R. 2 CPC and the observations made by this Court in its order dated 16.1.1996 in C.R. No. 1249/96. No order is, however, made as to the costs of this revision. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court immediately.