Mukta Gupta, J.:--

1. The petitioner Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt. Ltd. (in short Mitsubishi) was impleaded as defendant No. 6 in a suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Anup Mittal and A Square Automation Pvt. Ltd. besides respondents No. 3 to 7 who were the defendants No. 1 to 5 in TM No. 58/12 before the learned Additional District Judge. In the suit Mitsubishi filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion from the array of defendants as it was neither a necessary nor proper party. Vide the impugned order dated 26th March, 2014 the learned ADJ held that though Mitsubishi was not a necessary party but it was a proper party whose presence would enable the Court to completely, affectively and adequately adjudicate upon the matter in issue in the suit and thus the application of Mitsubishi under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

2. A brief exposition of facts is that respondents No. 3 to 7 who are defendants No. 1 to 5 in the suit were carrying on business in the name of MESSUNG and thus Anup Mittal, who was the Managing Director of Plaintiff No. 2/A Square Automation Pvt. Ltd., in the suit alleged that Respondents No. 3 to 7 i.e