Judgment CMA.No.94 of 2011: Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the order/decree in IA.No.175 of 2011 in OS.No.47 of 2003 dated 04/02/2011 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. CMA.No.99 of 2011: Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the order/decree in IA.No.176 of 2011 in OS.No.47 of 2003 dated 04/02/2011 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.) Common Order: The respondents 2 and 3 herein filed O.S.No.47 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against the petitioners and respondents 1, and 4 to 9 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners figured as defendants 1 to 3. The 9th defendant in the suit by name, Chinna Vempalle Gurava Reddy, died during the pendency of the suit. His legal heirs, i.e. respondents 10 to 13 and the 1st respondent herein came on record. The 1st respondent was shown as 12th defendant. The 1st respondent herein moved an application to transpose her as 3rd plaintiff in the suit. Even while that application is pending, she filed I.A.Nos.175 and 176 of 2011, for the reliefs of temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiffs and rest of the defendants from changing the physical features of the plaint schedule property, and alienating the same; respectively. The trial Court passed ad interim orders in those applications, on 04-02-2011, directing the parties to maintain status quo, obtaining as on that date. These two appeals are filed against the orders dated 04-02-2011 passed by the trial Court, in I.A.Nos.175 and 176 of 2011. Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in a suit for partition and separate possession, generally an application for temporary injunction cannot be filed, even by the plaintiffs, and in the instant case, applications are filed by one of the defendants, in anticipation of being transposed as a plaintiff. He further submits that assuming that the 1st respondent herein is transposed as a plaintiff, she cannot claim the reliefs against the original plaintiffs. Learned counsel contends that the trial Court was not at all justified in passing ad interim ex parte orders, at the instance of a person, who was added as a legal representative of a deceased-9th defendant, that too without hearing the original parties to the suit. Learned counsel contends that the trial Court was not at all justified in passing ad interim ex parte orders, at the instance of a person, who was added as a legal representative of a deceased-9th defendant, that too without hearing the original parties to the suit. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that her client has narrated the reasons, that necessitated the filing of the I.As., and that the trial Court has taken the same into account, while passing the orders under appeal. She contends that it is permissible for any party to the suit to file interlocutory applications, and that no interference is warranted with the orders passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants can very well move the trial Court for appropriate orders. It is endorsed by the appellants that the respondents 2 to 13 are not necessary parties. The suit filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein is the one, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. They did not feel the necessity of filing any interlocutory applications. The suit is pending trial, since 2003. Originally, 9 defendants were arrayed in the suit. On account of death of the 9th defendant, his legal representatives were brought on record, and the 1st respondent is one of them. Though the 1st respondent herein figured as 12th defendant in the suit, she wanted to get herself transposed as 3rd plaintiff. The application filed for that purpose is pending. The filing of an application for temporary injunction by one of the defendants, in a suit for partition is a rarity, though not prohibited. In a given case, one of the defendants can convince the Court and seek injunction against the plaintiffs, or the other co-defendants to protect his possession or other legal rights. However, in suits for partition, applications for injunction are not usually filed by the plaintiffs, themselves. The reason is that the possession or enjoyment of the items of suit schedule property by one or the other, of the parties, shall be for the benefit, and on behalf of all other co-sharers. It is almost rare that one of the defendants filed such an application, that too, in anticipation of being transposed as a plaintiff. In the cause title of the appeals, the 1st respondent was described as “petitioner/defendant No.12/proposed plaintiff No.3”. It is almost rare that one of the defendants filed such an application, that too, in anticipation of being transposed as a plaintiff. In the cause title of the appeals, the 1st respondent was described as “petitioner/defendant No.12/proposed plaintiff No.3”. Objection ought to have taken for such a description. Unless the status of the 1st respondent was clear, the trial Court ought not to have entertained the applications. Secondly, assuming that the 1st respondent has already been transposed as plaintiff, and application for injunction is filed by her, it ought not to have been against the original plaintiffs, i.e. the appellants herein. Though one defendant in a suit can seek temporary injunction against another, may be under extraordinary circumstances, the question of one plaintiff filing an application against the other plaintiff, does not arise. Different persons come together as plaintiffs only on account of unity of their interests or claims, vis-à-vis the defendants. One plaintiff, claiming relief, even interlocutory in nature, against another plaintiff, would, in fact, be a contradiction in terms. Though there may be disputes, inter se the defendants, plaintiffs are supposed to toe the one and the same line, and they cannot litigate against each other. Finally, it is only when an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., is filed by a plaintiff, at the initial stage of the suit, that the trial Court is required to pass orders, awaiting service of notice. Even in such cases, the Court has to record reasons, for granting any ad-interim relief. In the instant case, all the parties were represented by advocates. In fact, it is the respondent, who came into picture, much later. Hence, the necessity to pass ex parte ad interim injunction did not exist. Further, the trial Court did not record any reasons for granting the relief to the 1st respondent, without hearing the affected parties to the suit. The order reads, “issue urgent notice to respondents, meanwhile both the parties shall maintain status-quo as on today.” The entire approach of the trial Court was faulty and defective. The appeals are accordingly allowed, and the orders under appeals are set aside. It shall be open to the 1st respondent herein i.e. 12th defendant in the suit, to file separate suit, if she intends to claim any rights, vis-à-vis the parties to the present suit. There shall be no order as to costs.