Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- In a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants who included the plaintiff’s father as well, the defence taken by the defendants 1 to 5 was that the 6th defendant, who is the father of the plaintiff is really instrumental in bringing about the case and it is a collusive action. The 6th defendant moved an application for deletion of his name and the plaintiff had no objection. Defendants 1 to 5, however, objected to the deletion on the basis of the stand already taken that the suit itself was a collusive action brought about, engineered by the 6th defendant. The court declined to delete the 6th defendant.

2. The petitioner states that the plaintiff is the master of his action and if he had himself no objection for the deletion of the 6th defendant’s name, the court ought not to have heard the objections. It is the further contention that the 6th defendant was not in any way connected with the affairs of the Company and the suit relates to some dispute relating to the Company and, therefore, the 6th defendant’s presence is not necessary.

3. I reject both these contentions as not tenable. The power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not necess