( 1 ) THE Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and the Deputy General Manager (Legal) of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (in short MTNL), have filed this revision petition, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17. 10. 1997, by which the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the petitioner s application under Order VI, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, for deletion of certain averments claimed to be scandalous, unnecessary and vexatious. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge had, however, permitted the deletion of the General Manager, MTNL, from the array of defendants.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present revision petition may be briefly noted :

(I) The respondent, who is an Advocate by profession, filed a suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of Rs. 1,70,187. 00 , (Rs. one lakh seventy thousand and hundred eighty eight seven only) against the MTNL. The respondent also impleaded the Chief General Manager as defendant No. 2 and the Deputy General Manager (Legal) and defendant No. 3 in the said suit.

(II) The respondent had been retained on the panel of Advocate for MTNL. It is the respondent s case that the Deputy General Manager (Legal), assigned the cases to respondent to be conducted on behalf of MTNL and passed bills for the professional services rendered for payment. The respondent claims to have performed his work with sincerity, dedication and professionalism. While filing the suit for recovery of professional fee and for rendition of accounts, the respondent made the averments to the following effect in the plaint and in particular in para 6:the respondent claimed that defendant No. 1 intentionally delayed the clearance of the bills and caused harassment to the respondent. The respondent also claims to have served a legal notice dated 26. 9. 1994 to clear the outstanding bills alongwith interest. It is claimed by the respondent that the payment of his bills was delayed and withheld on one excuse or the other. In the event, the respondent tendered is resignation from the panel of MTNL, vide his letter of 5. 12. 1994 and the pending cases were assigned to other panel Advocates. The respondent claimed that the MTNL thereafter wrongly claimed with a view to harass him that the record of the MTNL relating to the cases had not been returned to the other Advocates. It is further claimed that as the respondent s pending bills were not being cleared, the respondent was told that the bills would be cleared, if he unconditionally withdrew the allegations against the Deputy General Manager (Legal ). The respondent claimed that he was compelled to withdrew the complaint against the Deputy General Manager (Legal), The respondent claimed that payment of Rs. 1,65,633. 00 had been made in part without details. The respondent s allegations that the intention of the petitioner and specially that of defendant No. 3, viz. , Deputy General Manager, is to delay the payment deprive the petitioner of his legitimate financial gains. The respondent sought a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,70,187. 00 against the defendants with interest. "

(III) The petitioners in the application moved under Order I, Rule 10 (2), Code of Civil Procedure, and sought the deletion of the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager (Legal), impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3, on the ground that no relief had been sought against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 personally and since the said employees were only the employees of the defendant company, no decree could be passed against them. Another application moved was for deletion of the scandalous, unnecessary and vexatious allegations made against the defendant No. 3 namely Deputy General Manager (Legal ).

(IV) The respondent opposed the said application on the ground that the respondent had set out the correct facts and averments made in the plaint were sine qua non for proving the case of the respondent.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned o