JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 16th October, 2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-02, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.75301/2016, whereby the application filed on behalf the petitioner/defendant no.2 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking deletion from the array of parties, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

2.1. The respondent no.2/defendant no.1 was an all India distributor of the petitioner/defendant no.2's generic pharmaceutical division and in this capacity, the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 could get pharmaceutical tablets and capsules manufactured from various third-party manufacturers, including the respondent no.1/plaintiff.

2.2. The respondent no.1/plaintiff and the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 entered into an agreement dated 29th September, 2005, whereby the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 was to place orders for the pharmaceutical tablets and capsules that were to be manufactured by the respondent no.1/plaintiff on a principal-to-principal basis.

2.3. In order to discharge the outstanding balance amount of Rs.60,47,218/-, and payment of purported interest in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- accrued on the principal sum of Rs.60,47,218/, the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 issued cheques in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff on 14th March, 2008.

2.4. On presentation, the said cheques were returned unpaid by the banker of the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 vide cheque returning memos.

2.5. The respondent no.1/plaintiff issued the letter dated 14th December, 2007 calling upon the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 to submit `Form C' under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `C Forms') in respect of the supplies made.

2.6. The respondent no.2/defendant no.1 vide letter dated 18th December, 2007 called upon the petitioner/defendant no.2 to supply the C Forms to the respondent no.1/plaintiff.

2.7. The contract between the petitioner/defendant no.2 and the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 was terminated on 4th March, 2008, at the instance of petitioner/defendant no.2, by serving notice of three months.

2.8. The respondent no.1/plaintiff issued legal notices against the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 and the petitioner/defendant no.2 on 27th March, 2008.

2.9. The petitioner/defendant no.2, vide letter dated 5th May, 2008 stated that that they would be issuing the C Forms after certain information/clarification had been supplied by the respondent no.1/plaintiff.

2.10. The respondent no.2/defendant no.1 vide their letter dated 14th May, 2008, informed that the petitioner/defendant no.2 had started the process of issuing C Forms to the respondent no.1/plaintiff.

2.11. The respondent no.1/plaintiff wrote a letter dated 8th January, 2009 to the petitioner/defendant no.2, reiterating that they had not deposited the C Forms, despite reminders.

2.12. The respondent no.1/plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery in 2009 for the admitted amount of Rs.60,47,218/- and the interest of Rs.31,18,757/-, calculated from the due date of payment till 31st July, 2009 @ 24% per annum on the above outstanding amount, totalling to Rs.91,65,975/-.

2.13. The petitioner/defendant no.2 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, stating that the petitioner/defendant no.2 had been improperly impleaded as a party to the present suit and accordingly sought to be deleted from the array of parties of the suit.

2.14. Vide the impugned order dated 16th October, 2019 the ADJ dismissed the said application of the petitioner/defendant no.2. Hence, the present petition.

3. The application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.2 seeking deletion from the array of parties was dismissed by the ADJ vide the impugned order reasoning/observing that, (i) the petitioner/defendant no.2 appeared to be a proper party