MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Following a matrimonial dispute between Sumer Singh Salkan and Reema Salkan, a complaint was made by Reema Salkan to the CAW Cell on March 06, 2003 which resulted in registration of FIR No. 127/2003 dated April 22, 2003 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Alipur, Delhi.

2. During the course of investigation in the said FIR, Look Out Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN) were issued against Sumer Singh Salkan resulting in the filing of a civil suit being CS(OS) No.2315/2011 for damages for Rs. 50 lakhs with interest pendent lite and future @ 12% per annum on account of defamation and malicious prosecution by Sumer Singh Salkan impleading Reema Salkan as defendant No.1, Assistant Director, Interpol, CBI as defendant No.2, Dr.R.K.Bansal, ACP Sub-Division Narela, as defendant No.3, Rupin Sharma, IPS, Head Quarters R&AW, as defendant No.4, R.S.Yadav, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North West District, Delhi as defendant No.5, Ranjeet Narayan, Special Commissioner, Crime Branch Delhi Police as defendant No.6 and Vikram Singh Mann, Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh as defendant No.7.

3. Ranjeet Narayan, defendant No.6 and R.S.Yadav defendant No.5 in the suit filed two applications being IA Nos. 3401/2013 and 12048/2013 respectively under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking deletion of their names from the array of parties. Vide the impugned order dated February 20, 2015 the learned Single Judge decided both the applications dismissing the application of R.S.Yadav declining him to delete from the array of parties and allowing the application of Ranjeet Narayan deleting him from the array of parties. Thus the two appeals before this Court one by R.S.Yadav being FAO(OS)157/2015 against dismissal of his application and the other by Sumer Singh Salkan being FAO(OS) No.238/2015 against the order allowing the application of Ranjeet Narayan.

4. Learned Single Judge notes and we reiterate that meaningful reading of the plaint would show that there are errors in referring to the defendants in the plaint inasmuch as though Vikram Singh Mann was impleaded as defendant No.7, he is referred as defendant No.6 in the plaint on some points whereas defendant No.6 is Ranjeet Narayan.

5. The averments regarding R.S.Yadav and Ranjeet Narayan in the plaint are in the following paragraphs and we reproduce-

“(xxi) The defendant No.1 realising that she was getting no where in the Crime Against Women Cell, exerted her influence with a senior police officer, by sending a false complaint against Inspector Raj Kumari to Mr. Ranjeet Narayan, Joint Commissioner of Police; wherein she said that the I.O. had advised her not to take her lawyer with her on 17.04.2003, hence she could not plead her case in the court convincingly, and consequently the parents and sister of the plaintiff got their bail. However, the order-sheet of the proceedings of 17.04.2003 shows that the defendant No.1 was not present in court. Thus there was no question of her not being able to argue her case convincingly. It is pertinent to mention that the F.I.R. was registered on the same day, i.e., 22.04.2003, when she complained to Mr. Ranjit Narayan. Evidently, a false and illegal F.I.R. was registered without looking into the documents on record (legal correspondence) which forms part of the F.I.R and without checking the authenticity of complaint of defendant No.1 against I.O. Ms. Raj Kumari.

(xxii) The defendant No.1 using the contact network in the police and influence of her brother, Mr. Vikram Singh Mann, (who is a senior IPS officer) managed to get an illegal Look-Out-Circular (LOC) issued against the plaintiff on the 27.05.2003 by an who was not even authorised to issue LOC.

(xxvi) The defendant No.1 continued to harass the plaintiff and his family in the garb of proceedings under Section 498-A/406/34 of IPC. The defendant No.1 with ulterior motives has spurned every effort by the plaintiff/his family and thei