The court emphasized the importance of a party's presence for a complete and final decision on the matter, as well as the application of legal provisions such as Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

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. Farooq Merchant proprietor of MESSUNG System, MESSUNG system, MESSUNG System Pvt. Ltd. MESSUNG Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and MESSUNG Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. (in short called MESSUNG Systems) were infringing and passing off its trade in the name of MESSUNG and thus prayed for permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off, rendition of accounts etc. It was stated that the plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Anup Mittal was the owner and proprietor of trademark/label ‘MESSUNG’ and plaintiff No. 2 had been using the said trademark/label with permission of plaintiff No. 1 who is the Managing Director of plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and marketing of Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCS) including Nesgen PLCS, Programmable Controllers (PCS), Frequency Inverters/AC Drives, Man Machine Interfaces/Operator Interfaces/Graphical Operator Terminals/Got Touch Sreen, Computer Numeric Controllers (CNCS), Servo Systems, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Devices (SCADA) etc. The plaintiff started providing consultancy for manufacturing, marketing & services to defendant No. 1 since 1996. Defendant No. 1 and its affiliates i.e. defendants No. 2 to 5 have been manufacturing their goods under the plaintiff’s said trademark/label ‘MESSUNG’ and all permanent customers were getting the supply of the same from plaintiff No. 2. In the year 2002 relationship between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 got estranged and defendant No. 1 tried to usurp the vast good-will and trademark/label of ‘M/s. MESSUNG’ which was the property of plaintiff No. 1 and represented the said trademark/label to be his own malafidely. Since both the plaintiffs and defendants are engaged in the same business of manufacturing and marketing of Industrial Automation Products allied/cognate goods, the defendants in breach of proprietary right of plaintiff’s trademark/label MESSUNG started using identical, deceptively similar trademark/label MESSUNG on their goods. Due to the activities of the defendants the plaintiff suffered huge losses both in business and reputation. It is further stated that defendant No. 6 i.e. Mitsubishi had earlier business relationship with defendants No. 1 to 5 only because of the quality of goods in business provided under the said trademark/label MESSUNG of the plaintiff with the expertise of the plaintiff. However, defendants No. 1 to 5 are lately misrepresenting to defendant No. 6 that they are the owner and proprietor of the impugned trademark/label MESSUNG. In middle of March 2012 through website of defendants No. 1 to 5 the plaintiffs came to know that defendants No. 1 to 5 have signed Business Transfer Agreement (in short the BTA) with defendant No. 6 i.e. the petitioner herein to merge operations of the defendants. The BTA is likely to