Rejection of plaint not permissible if cause of action exists against any defendant. Plaintiffs' claims could not be rejected solely based on the absence of cause of action against certain defendants.

( 1 ) THIS application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) has been filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 1-3. In the first instance, the defendants have prayed that the plaint be rejected as it does not disclose a cause of action against the defendant Nos. 1-3. The rejection of the plaint has also been sought on the ground that the same is barred by time. In the alternative it has been prayed that the names of the defendant Nos. 1-3 be deleted from the array of the parties.

( 2 ) IN the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff No. 1, a German national, was employed by the plaintiff No. 2 as a "flight attendant" with the german Air Force. The defendant No. 1 (C. J. International Hotels Limited) owns the defendant No. 3 hotel (Le Meridien Hotel, Windsor Place, New Delhi ). The defendant No. 2 is the Chairperson and Managing Director of the defendant No. 1 company. The defendant No. 4 is the proprietor of Oswal Gems, situated in shop no. 5 within the hotel premises of the defendant No. 3. It is in this shop that the incident, which is the subject matter of the suit, took place. The defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant No. 4. It is alleged that the defendant no. 5 committed criminal assault upon the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant No. 6 is an employee of defendant No. 4, who was allegedly present in the premises at the time of the occurrence of the incident.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that on 01. 11. 1996, the plaintiff No. 1 accompanied the german Federal Minister for Economic Affairs, Mr Guenther Rexrodt, on his flight, in her capacity as a flight attendant to New Delhi, for a stop over in delhi on the way back from Jakarta to Germany. The German delegation accompanying the Minister was booked for stay at the defendant No. 3 hotel from 01. 11. 1996 to 02. 11. 1996. The plaintiff, as part of the delegation, checked into the hotel and was allotted room No. 1265. On 01. 11. 1996 itself, at about 7 pm, the plaintiff No. 1 went to the shop of the defendant No. 4 (Oswal Gems) with a view to purchase some jewellery items. It is alleged that at that time the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were present in the shop. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 5 met the plaintiff inside the shop and invited her into a cabin constructed within the shop with the pretext of showing her jewellery. He asked the plaintiff No. 1 to sit down and showed her some jewellery about:blank 21-04-2009 items. Soon thereafter the defendant No. 5 alleged went out of the cabin and returned with a statue, which he suddenly struck the plaintiff with on her head and gave her three powerful blows. It is alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 started bleeding profusely and she almost lost consciousness. Thereafter, it is alleged that the defendant No. 5 attempted to rape the plaintiff No. 1. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 put up firm resistance as a result of which the defendant No. 5 was not able to commit rape. The defendant No. 5 was allegedly angered by this and threatened the plaintiff that he would kill her. The defendant No. 5 once again left the cabin to return shortly thereafter holding a knife in his hand. Apparently, the defendant No. 5 pushed the plaintiff No. 1 into a corner and struck her in the stomach with the knife. But, fortunately, due to the resistance put up by the plaintiff No. 1, the knife did not pierce the skin. The plaintiff No. 1 was able to gather all her courage and acted with composure and presence of mind and started talking with the defendant no. 5 to placate and pacify him. According to the plaintiff No. 1, the talk, fortunately, had a salutary effect on the defendant No. 5 and after about 30 to 35 minutes the plaintiff was permitted to gather her clothes and leave the shop.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that thereafter the plaintiff No. 1 went to the lobby of the defendant No. 3 hotel and in a