Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Section 115 of CPC, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30th May, 2012 whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion of its name from the array of parties in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 was dismissed.

2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioner and other parties who are the defendants in the main suit therein for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking that the Defendants may be directed to remove and permanently be restrained from posting alleged objectionable content/materials that are purportedly damaging the Indian Culture and are hurting the sentiments of the religious communities. The respondent No.1 alleged to have filed the said suit being a responsible person of the society in the public interest.

3. An ex-parte order directing the defendants to remove the alleged objectionable contents as claimed by the respondent No.1 to be available on various social networking sites was passed when the matter came up for hearing along with another direction to the defendants to file a compliance affidavit.

4. While the petitioner at the time of entering appearance in the suit filed a compliance affidavit in terms of the said order, it also filed an application for deletion of its name from the array of parties wherein it was stated that the Petitioner was not responsible for hosting the content that may appear on www.facebook.com or any website and that it does not control the servers and host the website www.facebook.com which are located in the US. On the same day, the learned trial court observed that the Petitioner i.e. defendant No.1 therein and defendant No.2 were improperly referred to as one and the same party i.e. Facebook in the cause title of the suit, and accordingly, the Respondent No.1 was directed to rectify the memo of parties.

5. In its written statement, the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been incorporated to carry on business in India and abroad of, inter alia, online support services, software development, providing technical support and services and that the petitioner does not own or operate any server that hosts the alleged content. It was also contended that no cause of action had been disclosed against the petitioner at all and as to the averments made in the plaint, no connection had been established between the petitioner and the alleged content.

6. On subsequent dates, Microsoft India Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant no. 7 therein) and Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd (Defendant no. 5 therein) respectively filed applications for deletion of their names from the array of parties and the same were allowed. It is contended by the petitioner that the application by Yahoo India was on similar grounds as that of the petitioner’s however the same relief to petitioner was denied without there being any evidence of petitioner’s position being different to that of Yahoo India.

7. Subsequently, the Respondent No.1 filed an application for deletion of Defendants no. 4,6,8,10 and 12 in the suit due to duplication of names of the aforesaid defendants being US entities of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Youtube and Exbii, respectively. The learned trial court did not take this application on record and returned it to the Respondent No.1 to consider deleting the Indian entities of the parties that had been duplicated. Accordingly the Respondent No.1 gave a no-objection for deletion of Defendants no. 3, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 being Google India (P) Ltd., Orkut India, Youtube India, Blogspot India, Zombie Time and Boardreader, respectively on the basis that these did not run the website allegedly hosting objectionable content. Further the Respondent No.1 filed an application for deletion of Defendants no.8, 16, 18-22 being Microsoft, Exbii, Broadreader, IMC India, My Lot, Shyni Blog and Topix, respectively from the array of parties which was also allowed by the learned trial court.

8. Facebook Inc. (Defendant no.2 therein) in its wri