20] Since, there is a dispute as to whether the plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 have assigned their entire rights to the suit premises in favour of GITCPL or not and further even assuming, that they have, there is no reason to strike out these plaintiffs from the array of the parties. However, considering the changed scenario where, these plaintiffs, have assigned a major portion of their interest in favour of GITCPL and further considering that it is only appropriate that GITCPL is impleaded as a defendant in the suit, it will be only appropriate that the plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 are also transposed as defendants in the suit. Such a course of action is permissible under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. On account of the assignment of their rights or in any case their substantial rights, there has arisen a conflict of interest between them and plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 who have not chosen to assign their rights in the suit premises in favour of GITCPL. If continuance of GITCPL and plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 as 'co-plaintiff' will result in embarrassment to the further proceedings in the suit, by the same logic, the continuance of plaintiff Nos. 2, 7 to 10 and 12 who have on their own say, assigned 75% of their rights to the suit premises in favour of GITCPL, will also constitute an embarrassment to the further progress in the suit. The same issue of representation by separate set of lawyers is bound to arise apart from several other inevitable complications. Since, the plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 have chosen not to assign their rights, it is only appropriate that they continue in the carriage of the suit the GITCPL
