GITA MITTAL, J.

1. Vide this judgment, we propose to decide the challenge to the judgment dated 1st July, 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of several applications and consequently the suit being CS(OS)No.2277/2010.

2. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to the appellant as 'SICPA' and the other parties by the same nomenclature as has been assigned to them by the learned Single Judge. Also to facilitate consideration, we may first and foremost note the parties to the litigation. SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. (SICPA for brevity hereafter) as plaintiff brought the suit against Shri Kapil Kumar (Defendant no.1); his wife Smt. Ritu Kumar (Defendant no.2); M/s Brushman (India) Ltd. (defendant no.3); ICICI Bank Ltd. (defendant no.4); DLF Ltd. (defendant no.5) and; M/s Genesis Finance Co. Ltd. (Defendant no.6).

It is noteworthy that while the opposite party nos.1 to 3 were arrayed as defendants, the defendant nos.4 to 6 were arrayed as proforma parties. They are also so described in the plaint.

3. Details of the applications decided by the impugned judgment dated 1st of July 2014 and the provision of law under which they were filed are as under:

Applications filed by plaintiff :

(i) I.A. No.15011/2010 [Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the 'CPC')]

(ii) I.A. No.15012/2010 (Order II Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC)

(iii) I.A. No.478/2011 [Order I Rule 10(2) CPC]

(iv) I.A. No.274/2012 (Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC) Applications filed by D-1 to D-3 : (i) I.A. No.6654/2011 (Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996) (ii) I.A. No.6657/2011 (Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC) (iii) I.A. No.20809/2011 (Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC)

4. The proposed amendment of the plaint by way of I.A.No.274/2012 was rejected primarily for the reason that the plaintiff was thereby seeking to make out a completely new case and that the amendment to the prayers were barred by law also. I.A.No.478/2011 seeking addition of a party was also rejected consequently by the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge concluded that I.A.No.15012/2010 was devoid of merit.

5. So far as the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction sought against defendant nos.4 to 6 in the existing plaint are concerned, it was held that the same are legally not permissible and as a result, I.A.No.20809/2011 was accepted. As a result of the decisions on these applications, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the plaintiff was disentitled to the reliefs sought in prayer clause 1(b) to 1(d) of the plaint against the defendant nos.4 to 6 and that the suit against them therefore, for these prayers was not maintainable.

6. It was held that as there was an arbitration clause in the loan agreement between SICPA and defendant nos.1 to 3 which was admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, so far as the claims of SICPA against defendant nos.1 to 3 were concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the amount claimed by the plaintiff/appellant was recoverable only as per law and the plaintiff was required to take necessary steps for initiating arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For this reason, the suit against defendants nos.1 to 3 could not continue in view of the prohibition under the said enactment. I.A.No.6654/2011 was therefore, accepted.

7. For the sake of convenience, we set down hereunder the heads under which we have considered the facts as well as the challenge in this judgment :

I.	Factual matrix (paras 8.1 to 8.47)
II.	Filing and proceedings in CS(OS)No.2277/2010 (paras 9.1 to 9.14)
III.	Challenge to the judgment on I.A.No.274/2012 filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. (paras 10.1