S.L. BHAYANA, J. This is an application filed by the Applicants/Defendants under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VII Rule 11 and under Section 151 of CPC, seeking deletion of defendant No.1 from the array of the parties.

2. Factual background of the instant suit from which the particular controversy arises is that the plaintiffs have, vide agreement, dated 27/12/2006, decided to sell of their shares of defendant No.1, i.e, Company, M/s Goel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd, having its registered office at 32, Todermal Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 have agreed to purchase 12500 equity shares for a total consideration of Rs.41,50,000/-. In order to obtain the recovery of the above mentioned amount, the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit thereby also impleaded M/s.Goel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd as Defendant No.1.

3. To support this application, Defendant No.1 has made the following submission that there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was never a party to the agreement dated 27/12/2006, which was executed and signed by Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 in their individual capacity for sale and purchase of equity shares. Defendant No.1/Company is neither a necessary party nor a proper party for the adjudication of dispute between the parties. Moreover plaintiffs have not raised any cause of action against Defendant No. 1 in their plaint. To support the application, learned counsel of the applicants has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of TBWA Anthem Pvt. Ltd. Vs Madhukar Kamath and Anr., 93 (2001) DLT 302.

4. While opposing present the application, the plaintiffs have submitted that it is an admitted fact that somewhere in the year 2005, plaintiffs have approached Defendant No.1 company and made some financial participation in the company to the tune of Rs.12,50,000 /-and henceforth was allotted 125000 equity shares of the company, i.e., Defendant No.1 and Plaintiff No.1 was also inducted as an Additional Director of Defendant No.1/Company. So in view of the above mentioned fact it is pertinent to note that for the recovery of money Defendant No.1/company is necessary and proper party for full and final adjudication of the suit.

5. To support his view point, learned counsel of plaintiffs has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Autocop (India) Private ltd. vs. S.Savinay Impex Pvt. Ltd., ILR (2006)2 Del 665.

(ii) Jheel Kurenja Milk Producers’ co-operative Society Ltd. & ANR vs. DDA & ORS, 115(2004) DLT 300. (iii) The Benaras Bank Ltd. vs. Bhagwan Das and Ratanlal and Anr. AIR 1947 (34) All 18.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that as far as question of deletion of M/S. Goel, i.e, Defendant No.1 from the array of the party from the suit is concerned, it is an admitted case that the agreement dated 27/12/2006 was in respect of 125000 equity shares of Defendant No.1 company. Plaintiffs herein were shareholder as well as Additional Director of the Company. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, no doubt, the Court has power to strike out the name of the party from the array of parties, firstly when the plaint do not disclose any cause of action against the impleaded Defendant and secondly when the presence of the Defendant is not required for the effective and complete adjudication of the suit. It is not a case where name of the Defendant No.1 is improperly joined, Defendant No.1/Company is required in the suit for effective settlement of all the disputes in the matter. Moreover, para 12 of the plaint specifically discloses cause of action against Defendant No.1 and it would be very unpractical to decide the issue involving shareholders or ex-directors vis-a-vis the promoter directors of the company without having the company as a party. Suit is related to recovery of Rs 43,00,000/- pertaining to agreement of sale, for sale and purchase of shares of Defendant No.1/Company. Only a prima facie satisfact