The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the relevance of written statements in determining the necessity of a party in a suit.

JUDGMENT

1. The Court : The defendant no.2 seeks deletion of its name from the array of parties in the suit by the present application. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendant no.2 submits that, no part of cause of action as against the defendant no.2 arose within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. He submits that, the plaint does not contain any pleading establishing any part of the cause of action as against the defendant No. 2 to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. In support of the contention that, when no part of the cause of action against the defendant arises within the jurisdiction of a Court in seisin of proceeding, such defendant cannot be a party in such suit, he relies upon (1999) 1 Cal LJ 68 page 401 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Messrs Stanimpex & Ors.) and ILR VOL. XLIX (Calcutta) 895 (Bengal And North Western Railway Co. Ltd. vs. Sadaram Bhairodan). According to him, the pleadings in the written statement cannot be looked into for the purpose of considering whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. In support of the contention that, pleadings in the written statement cannot be considered in an application of this nature, he relies upon (2012) Vol. 8 Supreme Court Cases 701 (Bhau Ram vs. Janak Singh And Others) and (1997) Vol.2 Cal. LT 321 (UCO Bank vs.Sm. Ratni Devi Jain & Ors.).

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant no.2 submits that, the reliefs claimed in the plaint of the suit are primarily directed against the defendant no.1. Apparently, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 entered into a contract by which, the defendant no.1 was obliged to supply goods to the plaintiff. According to the plaint case, the plaintiff suffered damages for which the plaintiff is seeking to recovery of damages from the defendant no.1. The only relief against the defendant no.2 in the plaint is prayer (d) of the plaint by which, the plaintiff seeks a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from demanding any money from the plaintiff in support of the transactions of the defendant no.1 with the plaintiff. He submits that, such a relief is contrary to the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act . He relies upon All India Reporter 1999 Cal 200 : (1999) 2 AP LJ (DNC 1) 12 (Indian Bank vs. Euro International Pte. Ltd.) in support of the contention that such relief cannot be granted.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the application of defendant no.2 is essentially under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . He relies upon the averments made in the application of the defendant no.1 in support of such contention. He submits that, therefore, the analogy that the defendant no.2 is seeking to introduce with regard to the parameter of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of 1908 are not applicable. He contends that, the written statement can be looked into by the Court to consider whether, the defendant no.2 is a necessary or a proper party or not. He draws the attention of the Court to the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submits that, the Court in certain circumstances, is entitled to add a person as a party to the suit without an application by any party to the suit, in the event, the Court finds that the presence of such party is essential for the proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties to the suit. He refers to the averments made in the written statement of the defendant no.2. He submits that, the defendant no.2 in its written statement claims itself to be the assignee of certain assets of an institute. He submits that, the defendant no.2 claims to have the bill of lading under which the goods were sold and delivered by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff assigned in favour of the defendant no.2. The goods were to be delivered upon the express instruction of the defendant no.2. The claim of the plaintiff is in the suit is on account of damages due to the delay