The main legal point established is that the court will consider the existing pleadings and agreements to determine the necessity of a party's inclusion in the case.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Oa No.75/2018 (of D-1 for setting aside of order dated 21.05.2018) & IA 9291/2018 (for condonation of 7 days delay in filing thereof)

1. The defendant no.1 has preferred this Chamber Appeal against the order dated 21st May, 2018 of the Joint Registrar of dismissal of IA No.848/2017 filed by the defendant no.1 under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC for deletion from the array of defendants.

2. Ms. Hiba, Advocate for the plaintiff’s states that Mr. Ravjyot Singh Advocate is in Tis Hazari Courts and has not reached till now and seeks a pass over.

3. Anyone seeing the Cause List of this Court would know that if the matter is passed over, it is unlikely to reach again.

4. The plaintiffs have filed this suit as a commercial suit and with respect whereto, timelines for disposal apply and the said timelines cannot be abided by the Court alone if the counsels do not cooperate in the same. There is no reason for non-appearance of the Advocate for the plaintiffs when the matter is called out.

5. The Senior Counsel for the defendants has been heard.

6. The Senior Counsel for the defendants has argued that (i) this suit was instituted by the four plaintiffs namely Saga Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., AMS International B.V., AMS Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and Future Living B.V., initially against the defendant no.1 Bang & Olufsen A/s only; (ii) on the defendant no.1 taking a plea that the agreement on which this suit was premised, was between the plaintiff no.2 AMS International B.V. and M/s. Bang & Olufsen Middle East FZ LLC which had not been made a party, the plaintiffs impleaded the said M/s. Bang & Olufsen Middle East FZ LLC as defendant no.2 to the suit; (iii) the defendant no.1 applied for deletion from the array of defendants, being not a party to the agreement in writing on which the suit is premised; (iv) the Joint Registrar, by the impugned order has however dismissed the said application; (v) the four plaintiffs have instituted this suit inter alia pleading, that (a) the plaintiff no.2, being in the business of marketing, sale and distribution of audio and other consumer electronic products came to know that the defendant was planning to launch itself in India by appointing a sales agent/representative and had approached the defendant for the purpose of being engaged as a Master Dealer in India; (b) the plaintiff no.2 was appointed as a Master Dealer in India and a Master Dealer Agreement was signed on 25th January, 2005; (c) under the said Master Dealer Agreement, various obligations were cast on the plaintiff no.2 and in discharge whereof the plaintiffs invested an amount of two Million Euros; (d) however vide letter dated 1st May, 2007, the Master Dealer Agreement was terminated by the defendant no.2; (e) the plaintiffs, having been left with no option, accepted the proposal of the defendant and a Dealer Agreement dated 4th July, 2007 was signed between the plaintiff no.3 and the defendant; (f) the defendant, in the year 2007-08 appointed many other dealers; (g) the action of the defendant was violative of the "gentlemen's agreement"; (h) a letter dated 30th November, 2011 of non-renewal was sent by the defendant to the plaintiffs; and (i) the action of the defendant had caused damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,01,000/- to the plaintiffs.

7. The Senior Counsel for the defendants has drawn attention to the Master Dealer Agreement at pages 12 and 15 of the Part III-A File to demonstrate that the same was between the plaintiff no.2 AMS International B.V. and the present defendant no.2 Bang & Olufsen Middle East FZ LLC and the defendant no.1 was not a party thereto.

8. On enquiry about the subsequent Agreement, the Senior Counsel for the defendants states that the plaintiffs have not even filed the Dealer Agreement dated 4th July, 2007 before this Court.

9. The Senior Counsel for the defendants contends that the learned Joint Registrar in the impugnd order has reasoned that because it is the case of plaintiffs that the defendant no.1