JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J. This order shall dispose of the application of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 1 Rule 3(2) and Rule 10(2) read with Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant Nos.1 and 2, British Airways Plc. has sought deletion/striking out the names of Mr. Andy Stern and Mr. Neil Robertson, defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The applicant also seeks amendment to the cause title of the suit on the ground that British Airways Plc having addresses at DLF Plaza Tower, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana and at Flat No. 2, 11th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 are the same entity having two different addresses.

2. The applicant contended that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the executives to whom plaintiff reported in her capacity as an employee of British Airways and the plaint does not contain any reference to said defendants except their capacity as executives/employees of British Airways Plc. The applicant seeks deletion of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that from the allegations made in the plaint, no relief can be claimed against them. It is asserted that plaintiff with illegal and with mala fide intentions has filed the suit against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and these defendants have only been impleaded with a view to pressurize the British Airways Plc, to settle her claim though there is no personal involvement of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who are neither liable under any contact of employment nor are they personally liable for the plaintiff's employer nor the plaintiff had at any time contracted with them or had been engaged by them as employers of the plaintiff in their personal capacity. On these grounds the applicant/British Airways Plc has claimed rejection of the plaint against defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and has sought striking out defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the array of defendants in the memo of parties and claims that suit be continued only against British Airways Plc at its head office in India, i.e., DLF Plaza Tower, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

3. Though the application is filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, British Airways Plc, the application is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Andy Stern, General Manager, South Asia of M/s. British Airways Plc, who is also the defendant No. 3 in the abovenoted suit.

4. The plaintiff/non-applicant has opposed the application contending that the application has been filed one year after the filing of the written statement and for the purposes of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the averments made in the plaint only have to be looked into. There are specific allegations against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who were responsible for illegal, wrongful and arbitrary acts committed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 which has led to the present disputes. Consequently, they have been rightly impleaded as parties to the present suit. The plaintiff has relied on various paras of the plaint and has stated that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were responsible for depriving the plaintiff from her legitimate dues and therefore, they are also liable. The plaintiff contended that whether the defendants are necessary parties or not and whether no relief of recovery and declaration can be granted can be decided only after trial. The plaintiff contended that he is dominus litus and in view of specific averments against these defendants and the decree of recovery and declaration sought against them, they cannot be deleted as parties to the suit on the basis of averments made by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Regarding defendant No. 3, it was contended that he was a party to pressurizing and coercing the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 misled the plaintiff. It has been also asserted that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are jointly and severely responsible and liable for the acts of British Airways Plc.

5. The learned Counsel for defendants/applicants has relied on 71 (1998) Delhi Law Times 467, M