( 1 ) THE Plaintiffs Firm has filed this Suit for recovery of Rs. 9,70,417/- in which it has arrayed Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited ( vsnl for short) as Defendant No. 1, Rail India Technical and Economical Services Limited ( rites for short) as Defendant No. 2. and the Bank of India ( boi for short), Muzaffarnagar Branch as Defendant No. 3. The Prayers in the Plaint are reproduced below in order to adumbrate that it fails to indicate against which of the Defendants the prayer for recovery is directed:

"a) be pleased to grant a decree for recovery of sum of Rs. 6,10,896. 00 (Rupees Six Lacs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety six only), the balance amount of payment on the said work plus Rs. 1,32,580. 00 (Rupees One lac Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Only) amount of FDRs plus Rs. 62,000. 00 (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand only) amount of Bank guarantee, total amount of Rs. 9,70,417. 00 (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen Only), in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. b) this Hon ble Court be further pleased to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to pay the interest of Rs. 1,64,941. 00 (Rupees One lac Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty One only) on the amount of Rs. 6,10,896. 00 (Rupees Six Lacs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Six only), on the aforesaid balance amount of the work not paid at an interest of 18% per annum from 22. 03. 1999 to 22. 09. 2000. c) this Hon ble Court be further pleased to grant 18% future interest. d) Cost of the suit be awarded".

( 2 ) THE Plaintiffs had entered into a contract for supply and installation of false flooring in the HUB building at VSNL SAN, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110030. It is asseverated that upon completion of the Works in June, 1998 the Plaintiffs were paid an amount of Rs. 20,13,820/-, which is approximately eighty per cent of the contract value. It has then been pleaded that the Defendants had not fulfilled their obligations under the Contract, the details of which are not relevant for the present decisions. It is averred that Defendants No. 1 and 2 demanded an amount of Rs. 1,32,580/- in the form of FDRs together with a Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs. 62,000/- which had been duly deposited. It has been pleaded that the Plaintiffs have not been informed of any defects in the Works. It appears that the Plaintiffs had filed a Writ Petition which was disposed of observing, inter alia, that the parties "would be at liberty to avail of remedies as available in arbitration or in civil forum as the case may be". The Plaintiffs demand for the balance amount due, the release of the FDRs and the Bank Guarantee did not have the desired result and hence the present Suit has been filed.

( 3 ) IN the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs conceded that no relief has been claimed against the Bank of India and it may, therefore, be struck of from the array of the parties. I am satisfied that Defendant No. 3, Bank of India, is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is, therefore, struck of from the array of parties.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 has filed a copy of the Agreement For Construction Management Services between itself and RITES dated 29. 1. 1998, Clause VIII of which stipulates the resolution of inter se disputes through Arbitration. This document has not been disputed by any of the parties. It thereafter transpires that RITES entered into an agreement with the Plaintiffs on 15. 6. 1998 for and on behalf of VSNL as its Consultant. The tendered document is, however, in the name of VSNL albeit through RITES. Clause 25 contains the agreement to resort to arbitration. It has not been disputed by any of parties hereto that RITES acted as the agent of VSNL.

( 5 ) THE immediate question that arises is whether RITES is a necessary party. It is the duty of the Court under Order I Rule 10 that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant,