Sumer Singh Salkan vs Vikram Singh Mann

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Sumer Singh Salkan - Appellant
Versus
Vikram Singh Mann & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 37 of 2019
Decided On : 10-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Malavika Rajkotia with Mr. Mayank Grover, Advocates, for the Appellant; Dr. Reema Salkan, for the Respondent.

Headnote:
Order I Rule 10 - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC) - [Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC] - The court discussed the principles to be applied while deciding an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC and emphasized the necessity of impleading a party for effective adjudication. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the averments in the plaint and rejected the piecemeal rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The judgment referenced key legal provisions such as Order I Rule 10 of the CPC and Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC, and emphasized the need for a complete and effective adjudication of the suit.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought setting aside of orders allowing deletion from the array of parties and dismissing a review application. The suit arose from alleged misuse and abuse of legal process resulting in damages to the plaintiff's career and reputation. The defendants filed applications seeking deletion from the array of parties and rejection of the plaint, which were partially allowed by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff's averments in the plaint were sufficient for the impleadment of the defendant no. 7 in the suit. It emphasized the necessity of impleading a party for effective adjudication and rejected the piecemeal rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the averments in the plaint and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues involved the impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and the sufficiency of averments in the plaint for impleading a party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles to be applied while deciding an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the necessity of impleading a party for effective adjudication, and the rejection of the piecemeal rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Final Decision: The present petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside to the extent it rejected the plaint qua defendant no. 7 and allowed deletion of the defendant no. 7 from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks setting aside of (i) the order dated 6th February, 2018, whereby an application filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 7 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking deletion from the array of parties has been allowed; and (ii) the order dated 12th July, 2018, whereby the review filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff [hereinafter 'plaintiff] against the order dated 6th February, 2018 has been dismissed.

2. Notice was issued in the present petition on 11th January, 2019 and pursuant thereto, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2. Arguments of the counsels for the parties were heard on 16th December, 2021 and thereafter, the judgment was reserved.

Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court to both sides, written submissions have been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are set out hereinafter:

3.1 The plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 got married on 24th March, 2002 but soon thereafter, the petitioner left for Canada. Differences arose between them, which resulted in filing of police complaints by the defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff.

3.2 On 3rd March, 2004 a 'Red Corner Notice' (RCN) was issued against the plaintiff, who, at that point of time was in Canada, in which it was incorrectly recorded that the maximum possible penalty for the offences allegedly committed by the plaintiff was 10 years, whereas the maximum punishment prescribed for the said offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC) was three years.

3.3 The plaintiff filed a writ petition before this Court seeking quashing of the illegal RCN and the LOC issued against the plaintiff, being W.P.Crl.1315/2008, and vide the order dated 11th August, 2010, this Court allowed the petition and quashed the RCN.

3.4 The suit from which the present petition arises, being CS 58517/16, was filed on 10th August, 2011 seeking damages of Rs.50,00,000/- against, inter alia, the respondent no. 1, being defendant no. 7, and the respondent no. 2, being defendant no. 1, in the suit.

3.5 The suit was premised on damage to the plaintiffs career, reputation and life caused by the misuse and abuse of the legal process in getting a 'Look Out Circular' (LOC) and RCN issued by the defendants against the plaintiff.

3.6 The case set up in the plaint was that the defendant no. 1, who was married to the plaintiff, used her brother, defendant no. 7, who was a senior IPS officer, to have a false FIR lodged and illegal LOC and RCN issued against the plaintiff, which caused immense harm to his career and reputation.

3.7 The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement. In the said suit, the defendants no. 5 and 6 filed two applications under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking deletion of their names from the array of parties and the Single Judge, vide judgment dated 20th February, 2015 dismissed the application filed by the defendant no. 5 but allowed the application filed by the defendant no. 6. However, vide judgment dated 1st February, 2016, a Division Bench of this Court deleted defendants no. 5 and 6 from the array of parties. The plaintiff filed a Special Leave Petition against the said judgment, which is pending before the Supreme Court.

3.8 On 29th February, 2016, the suit was transferred to the District Court.

3.9 Thereafter, the defendants no. 1 and 7 filed a joint application under Order I Rule 10 and Order VII Rule ll(d) of the CPC seeking (i) their deletion from the array of parties; and, (ii) rejection of the plaint. The impugned order dated 6th February, 2018 allowed the application partially by rejecting the plaint qua the defendant no. 7 and deleting the defendant no. 7 from the array of parties. However, the plaint was not rejected qua the defendant no. 1. The impugned order held that:

(i) in th