The central legal point established in the judgment is that the presence of a party in a suit is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved, as per the principles of Order 1 Rule 10.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 06.02.2015 whereby defendant No.7 has been deleted from the array of parties, on the ground that as no relief has been sought against the defendant No.7, he is not a necessary party.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- as against the defendant Nos.1 to 6. No relief has been sought against the defendant No.7 in the plaint. It is the contention of the appellant that the defendant No.7, if not a necessary party, is at least a proper party and has been correctly impleaded in the suit and, as such, the defendant No.7 could not have been deleted from the array of parties.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the presence of the defendant No.7 is necessary as the appellant/plaintiff wants to cross-examine the defendant No.7. It is contended that the defendant No.7 has an important role to play in the suit and the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and, as such, the presence of the defendant No.7 is necessary. It is contended that if the defendant No.7 was not continued as a party in the suit, there would be no opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant No.7 with regard to the role played by the defendant No.7 in the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.1 to 6.

4. Per contra, the defendant No.7, who is respondent No.1 in the present appeal, has contended that the defendant No.7 is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is contended that originally the suit was filed impleading the defendant No.7 and the defendant No.8. Both of them had allegedly a common role to play in regard to the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 6. It is contended that in the plaint wherever any role is ascribed to the defendant No.7, the same role is ascribed to defendant No.8 and in every paragraph the words ‘defendant No.7 & defendant No.8’ is stated together. It is contended that in the plaint the defendant No.7 and the defendant No.8 have been shown as having complete parity in regard to the entire transaction. It is further submitted that the defendant No.8 has been deleted by the plaintiff on its volition from the array of parties. It is contended that if defendant No.8 is neither a necessary nor a proper party, then the defendant No.7 is also neither a necessary nor a proper party. If the suit can continue in the absence of the defendant No.8, the suit can also continue in the absence of the defendant No.7. It is further contended by the respondent No.1 that he had a claim against the plaintiff and had initiated arbitration proceedings which have resulted in an arbitration award in his favour and the challenge to the award by the Appellant before the High Court of Bombay has failed and the impleadment of defendant No.7 in these proceedings is only to harass him and force him to settle the award which has become final between the plaintiff and the defendant No.7. It is further contended that in case the plaintiff wishes, he can always summon the defendant No.7 as a witness or, in the alternative, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 could always summon the defendant No.7 and he can be then subjected to cross-examination by the plaintiff.

5. In rejoinder to the contentions raised by the respondents, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was an apprehension that originally the defendant No.8 would file a counter claim against the plaintiff and, as such, the plaintiff settled the disputes with defendant No.8 and, accordingly, deleted the defendant No.8 from the array of parties. With regard to the summoning of the defendant No.7 as a witness, it is contended that if the plaintiff were to summon the defendant No.7 as a witness, then the plaintiff would not be able to cross-examine him.

6. The principles governing the addition/deletion of a party under Order 1 Rule 1