Case Note & Summary
The case involves two civil revision applications arising from a suit filed by Vidharbha Enterprises (plaintiff) against the Union of India and BSNL (defendants 1 and 2) seeking a declaration that the disconnection of their telephone lines was illegal and for an injunction restraining further disconnection. The plaintiff also impleaded Chandrashekhar Mor (defendant No.3) as a co-defendant, alleging that he had applied for the telephone connection in question. However, no specific relief was claimed against defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion of his name from the suit, which was rejected by the trial court. He then filed Civil Revision Application No.9 of 2006. Separately, defendants 1 and 2 (Union of India and BSNL) filed Civil Revision Application No.10 of 2006 challenging the trial court's order refusing to strike off the plaint or reject the suit. The High Court heard both matters together. The court held that since no relief was claimed against defendant No.3, he was not a necessary party and his name should be deleted. The court allowed the revision application of defendant No.3 and directed the trial court to delete his name. Regarding the revision application of defendants 1 and 2, the court found no merit and dismissed it, as the suit was maintainable against them. The court emphasized that a co-defendant against whom no relief is claimed cannot be forced to remain a party.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 10 - Necessary Party - Co-defendant - The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Union of India and BSNL regarding disconnection of telephone lines. Defendant No.3 was impleaded as a co-defendant but no relief was claimed against him. The trial court refused to delete his name. The High Court held that a co-defendant against whom no relief is claimed is not a necessary party and his name ought to be deleted. The court allowed the revision application and directed deletion of the name of defendant No.3. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 10 - Deletion of Party - Co-defendant - The court observed that the plaintiff's suit was only against the Union of India and BSNL for declaration and injunction regarding telephone disconnection. Defendant No.3 was merely a subscriber who had applied for the telephone connection. Since no relief was sought against him, he was not a necessary party. The trial court's order refusing deletion was set aside. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a co-defendant against whom no relief is claimed by the plaintiff can be treated as a necessary party and whether the trial court erred in refusing to delete his name from the suit.
Final Decision
Civil Revision Application No.9 of 2006 is allowed. The trial court's order refusing deletion of defendant No.3 is set aside. The name of defendant No.3 shall be deleted from the suit. Civil Revision Application No.10 of 2006 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- necessary party
- co-defendant
- no relief claimed
- deletion of party
- civil revision
