S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The unsuccessful first defendant in a pending suit (claiming damages) has appealed to this court claiming to be aggrieved by an order of the learned single judge, whereby its application (I.A. No. 3607/2012 under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 16 of CPC for deletion of another defendant from the array of parties) was rejected.

2. The plaintiff is a former employee of the seventh defendant, (hereafter “Indian Hotels”). The said defendant is owner of, and manages the Taj group of companies. The defendant no. 8, (Taj Trade and Transport Co. Ltd.- “Taj Trade”), is a wholly owned subsidiary of Indian Hotels. Taj Trade also owns and operates a reputed chain of exclusive variety stores known as “Khazana”. The first six defendants are officials of the seventh and eighth defendants. The first defendant was (at the relevant time) Chairman of the Tata Group; the second defendant (R.K. Krishna) at the relevant time was Managing Director of Kumar Indian Hotels; the third defendant (S. Ramakrishnan) at that time, was Deputy Managing Director of Indian Hotels, of which fourth defendant (A. P. Goel) was Vice President, Finance; the fifth defendant (Smt. Sabina Saxena) was CEO (of Indian Hotels); the sixth defendant (Smt. Namita Jain) was Deputy General Manager at the relevant time of Taj Travels.

3. The plaintiff alleged that her employment with Indian Hotels and Indian Trade was wrongfully and arbitrarily terminated. She joined the Indian Hotels on October 23, 1980, as receptionist on a temporary basis. Thereafter, on July 14, 1981, she was confirmed and designated as Confidential Secretary in the then Managing Director’s office at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi. She claims to have been involved with the offices of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, as well as associated with the exclusive stores known as “Khazana” “The Collection” owned and operated by Taj Travels. The plaint alleges that Indian Hotels was going through a tumultuous time due to several changes in the management structure by the first defendant, who wanted to have his own officers at the helm of the seventh and eighth defendants.

4. The suit alleges that the first three defendants conspired to get rid of various officers of the Indian Hotels and Taj Travels; several officers of those companies were harassed through numerous audits and investigations. The plaintiff alleged that the fifth and sixth defendants were appointed surreptitiously to oust her from her role and standing in the defendants’ organization; also the first and sixth defendants were acting in concert to force her to either resign or take up duties which would not interfere with their style of working. Eventually, her services were terminated; she claimed compensation and damages, jointly and severally from the defendants.

5. The application of Indian Hotels was that names of the defendants nos. 1 to 4 and 6 ought to be deleted from the array of parties on the ground as they were neither necessary nor proper parties and that the plaintiff was unable to establish a cause of action against those defendants. All allegations made against them are vague, baseless, unsubstantiated and entirely misconceived, with a view to make them parties in this suit for vexatious purposes. Indian Hotels also contended that all the pleadings made against said first four defendants, and sixth defendant, should also be struck off as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial, embarrassing and an abuse of the process of this Court. It was contended that the dispute was one relating to a simpliciter termination of the plaintiff’s employment which cannot ipso facto give rise to a claim against the Chairman, Managing Director or other senior executives of the two companies involved. It was contended that compelling these individuals to undergo the rigours of a trial was unnecessary, since no relief was claimed against them. The applicant/defendant (Indian Hotels) also relied