JUDGMENT Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Facts: Maude D''Penha, the mother and landlady, filed R.A.E. Suit No.238/515 of 2008 to have the 1st respondent, that is the original tenant, evicted. She has filed it through the petitioner, her son and Genera Power of Attorney. Pending the suit, she died. Then, her son and GP Agent claiming to be not only her legal representative but also the executor of her Will applied to come on record as the plaintiff. 2. In the application the petitioner filed for his impleadment as the legal representative of his deceased mother, he showed the remaining children-that is his other brothers and sisters-as the respondents. The record does not reveal whether these other children have been put on notice. Eventually, that application allowed, the petitioner continued the eviction proceedings. 3. Later, in 2017, the other children, that is the respondents 2 to 4, applied under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to bring themselves on record as co- plaintiffs. Then, the petitioner opposed it. Despite the petitioner''s resistance, the trial Court allowed the application: it permitted them to come on record as co-plaintiffs. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Application No.112 of 2017 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court. But he could not succeed as the Appellate Bench dismissed the Revision through its order dated 22nd February 2018. Finally, the petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and filed this Writ Petition. Submissions: Petitioner: 5. In the above factual background, Shri Cama, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that, first, there has been conflict of interest between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4. To elaborate on this fact, he informs the Court that the respondents 2 to 4 have already filed a suit against the petitioner, assailing the mother''s Will. Second, he also claims that the petitioner has been continuing the eviction proceedings not only as one of the legal representatives but also as the executor of the Will. And in this context, he has drawn my attention to the Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan, (2016) 3 SCC 296 . It was for the proposition that amongst many co-owners, the one who intermeddles with the property can always file and maintain a suit for eviction, without joining the other co-owners. But that co-owner should have no conflict of interest with the other coowners. 6. It was for the proposition that amongst many co-owners, the one who intermeddles with the property can always file and maintain a suit for eviction, without joining the other co-owners. But that co-owner should have no conflict of interest with the other coowners. 6. Shri Cama submits that given the disputed Will and the pending Civil Suit, the respondents cannot hide the fact that there is a conflict of interest among the legal heirs. According to him, it has been this Court''s long established practice not to have as co-plaintiffs persons with a conflict of interest. On this count, he relies on Venkatrao A Pai and Sons Ltd. v. Narayanlal Bansilal, (1961) AIR Bombay 94 . 7. According to Shri Cama, the petitioner has had no objection for his other siblings to be the defendants supporting his cause for eviction. The proposition of Venkatrao A Pai, Shri Cama maintains, has been consistently followed by this Court, a case in point being ABN Amro Bank Mumbai through Kukkundoor Achuta Nayak v. The Royal Bank of Scotland NV and Sandeep Sareen. (Chamber Summons No.103 of 2017 in Suit No.1537 of 2012) That was by a learned Single Judge. And that decision was affirmed by a Division Bench, as Shri Cama points out, in Sandeep Sareen v. ABN AMRO Bank Kolkata Pensioners Association (Apeal No.310 of 2017 in Chamber Summons No.103 of 2017 in Suit No.1537 of 2012). 8. Eventually, Shri Cama urges this Court to reverse the findings of the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Bombay, and let the petitioner pursue the suit, with the respondents 2 to 4 as the defendants, who may still support him. The Respondents 2 to 4: 9. But Shri Haresh Arjan Shivdasani, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4, submits that the application the petitioner filed to come on record after the mother''s death has no whisper about any conflict of interest among the brothers and sisters. He has also underlined the fact that the respondents 2 to 4 are willing to have a common counsel to pursue the matter. According to him, the other civil suit about the mother''s Will does not affect the common stand all the legal representatives intend to take in this case. 10. Shri Shivdasani has also submitted that the petitioner projected himself as the executor of the Will and came on record behind the other siblings'' back. According to him, the other civil suit about the mother''s Will does not affect the common stand all the legal representatives intend to take in this case. 10. Shri Shivdasani has also submitted that the petitioner projected himself as the executor of the Will and came on record behind the other siblings'' back. When those siblings proposed to collectively represent the mother''s estate, both the courts below have accepted that proposal. Accordingly, they were allowed to transform themselves as co-plainitffs from the position of defendants. According to him, the impugned orders cause no prejudice to the petitioner and his insistence that he should be the sole plaintiff after the mother''s death carries no conviction. 11. Heard Shri Rohan Cama for the petitioner and Shri Haresh Arjan Shivdasani for the respondent nos.2 to 4. Discussion: 12. Indeed, a literal reading of Order 1 Rule 10 does not indicate that all the plaintiffs should have a common interest or at least should have no conflict of interest. But the time-honoured practice shows otherwise. 13. Order 1, Rule 1 of CPC answers the question who may be joined as plaintiffs: All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where (a) any right to relief regarding, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative; and (b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. 14. Order 1, Rule 2, however, envisages a separate trial under certain circumstances. If it appears to the court that any joinder of plaintiffs may embarrass or delay the trial, the court may "put the plaintiffs to their election" or order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient. 15. In Venkatrao A Pai, the question was whether more than one person can join in a suit as co-plaintiffs to press for their individual rights by engaging their own advocates and by conducting the case independently of the other plaintiffs. 15. In Venkatrao A Pai, the question was whether more than one person can join in a suit as co-plaintiffs to press for their individual rights by engaging their own advocates and by conducting the case independently of the other plaintiffs. This Court, per J. C. Shah J (as his Lordship then was), first, noted that the question was very important; second, it observed that the issue concerns the validity on otherwise of a long standing practice prevailing both on the Original Side of the High Court and on its Appellate Side, as also in all the subordinate courts. And, third, it has judicially acknowledged that the traditions and conventions of this High Court have all been inherited from the English Courts of justice. As the history would have it, one of the counsel argued the matter was an advocate by name Y.V. Chandrachud! 16. To begin with, Venkatrao A Pai quotes with approval the assertion of Wedderburn v. Wedderburn,1853 51 ER 993 : "When persons undertake the prosecutions of a suit they must make up their minds whether they will become co-plaintiffs; for if they do, they must act together. I cannot allow one of several plaintiffs to act separately from and inconsistently with the others." 17. Then taking a cue from Wedderburn, the Court has articulated the proposition about how more than one person should sue. Two or more persons may join as co-plaintiffs in a suit, Venkatrao A Pai notes, only if there is any common question of law or fact between them. And their respective claims must have arisen out of the same transaction. The law permits these different plaintiffs to join in one action by filing one common plaint only with a view to saving the multiplicity of suits and consequent wastage of time of the Court. 18. This objective remembered, we may appreciate that if a separate counsel represents each plaintiff and that counsel takes charge of the case for his own client, it will certainly frustrate that objective. One of the arguments was that if several plaintiffs are allowed to join trial despite their differences, it will save time. Venkatrao A Pai repells that contention. According to it, if conflicting plaintiffs are permitted to sue together, far more time will be taken and several unnecessary complications may arise. 19. One of the arguments was that if several plaintiffs are allowed to join trial despite their differences, it will save time. Venkatrao A Pai repells that contention. According to it, if conflicting plaintiffs are permitted to sue together, far more time will be taken and several unnecessary complications may arise. 19. It may be for this reason that the tradition has taken, Venkatrao A. Pai observes, deep roots both in the courts here as in England that in cases where more persons than one join as co-plaintiffs in one action, they should all be jointly represented by one or more counsel. It may be that at some stage or the other of the action some of the plaintiffs might feel that there is a conflict of interest between them and the other plaintiffs. Venkatrao A. Pai concludes that the plaintiffs with conflicting interests cannot be allowed to engage a different counsel. If they so wish, they might well apply to the Court to transpose them as defendants. 20. Indeed, this Court, as Shri Cama has submitted, consistently followed this practice, as is evident from the recent decision in ABN Amro Bank Mumbai through Kukkundoor Achuta Nayak. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court has affirmed that decision in Sandeep Sareen. 21. The precedential force of the above judgments is unmistakable. The norm is that given a common cause, all the persons with identical rights-say, as an obvious instance, the legal heirs or representatives of a deceased person-must sue conjointly. The advantages with such an approach are obvious and need no particular emphasis. The exception is their suing disjointedly. Despite their seeming commonality, parties may have inter-personal differences or, better put, conflict of interest. Lest it should embarrass the trial or even derail it altogether. 22. Here the parties trace their right to a common ancestor- their mother. The petitioner propounds a Will and claims to have been the executor under that Will. The other legal heirs have already disputed that claim. And that has resulted in a separate suit between them, involving that Will. That said, we must accept here they have a common interest and apparently are united against the defendant. The respondents have walked an extra mile. They are willing to have a common counsel-the counsel the petitioner has already engaged, perhaps. 23. But still, the petitioner does not desire to have his siblings along with him. That said, we must accept here they have a common interest and apparently are united against the defendant. The respondents have walked an extra mile. They are willing to have a common counsel-the counsel the petitioner has already engaged, perhaps. 23. But still, the petitioner does not desire to have his siblings along with him. They initially were arrayed as the defendants; they remained so for a while. Later, because of some collateral development, they transposed themselves as the co-plaintiffs. And the trial Court allowed it. 24. I have asked the counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 whether those respondents apprehend any prejudice to their rights if they prosecute the case as the defendants but with the same rights as the petitioner has. He has answered it in the affirmative. Such a course of action, as suggested by the petitioner, may mark the respondents'' right or interest in the property and the relief as inferior. The decree likely to be obtained will stand in the petitioner''s name, to quote one single instance of prejudice. 25. I am afraid the respondents'' apprehension may not be well founded. It cannot be denied that the petitioner on one hand and the respondents 2 to 4 on the other hand have a conflict of interest over the property. The Will seems to be the bone of contention or, at least, the consequences flowing from the Will. True, in this eviction suit they have no conflict; but that mutual distrust persists. If the respondents 2 to 4 can judicially be assured that their suing as the defendants will not harm their right in, title to, interest over, possession of the property, that will suffice. The respondents remaining as the defendants may also expedite the proceedings-to their own advantage. 26. So this adjudication boils down to one thing: assuring the respondents 2 to 4 that their remaining in the suit as defendants 2 to 4 does not affect their interest in any manner. I do so. 27. Only for procedural ease, the respondents 2 to 4 will remain in the suit as the defendants. But their right over and interest in the property are on a par with those of the petitioner "in the eviction suit." Their rival contentions in the other suit, too, remain unaffected. 28. I do so. 27. Only for procedural ease, the respondents 2 to 4 will remain in the suit as the defendants. But their right over and interest in the property are on a par with those of the petitioner "in the eviction suit." Their rival contentions in the other suit, too, remain unaffected. 28. That is, the petitioner will continue as the sole plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 will get transposed back as defendants 2 to 4. I have used the expression "transpose back" because as there was no stay, the petitioner was constrained to amend the plaint and show the respondents 2 to 4 as co-plaintiffs. Thus, once the respondents 2 to 4 are transposed back as defendants, they can also pursue the suit along with the petitioner. I repeat that this arrangement of the respondents being the defendants will not prejudice their rights in any manner before any forum. 29. As a result, I set aside the order dated 22nd February 2018, Civil Revision Application No.112 of 2017 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court. And the Writ Petition stands allowed in the manner set out above.