$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17^th January, 2026 Date of Decision: 23^rd January, 2026 + CM(M) 240/2023 & CM APPL. 7125/2023 SMT. NITA BHAGAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Kumar, Adv.

versus M/S TARINI HOSPITALITY SERVICES & ANR......Respondents Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Mrs. Preeti Makkar and Ms. Beauty Tamut, Advs.

for R-2/EIL.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R

1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 05th January, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 378/2019, whereby the application filed by respondent no. 2 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed and respondent no. 2 was deleted from the array of parties. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,96,631/- along with interest against the respondents. In the plaint, the petitioner has made the averments that the petitioner is engaged in the house-keeping services industry. In April, 2017, the respondent no. 1 approached the petitioner for providing services and supply of materials/tools to corporate and partner units, particularly to respondent no. 2. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner supplied house-keeping materials to respondent no. 2 as per its demands. The petitioner regularly raised bills and invoices to respondent no. 1, the details whereof are stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint. For the services rendered and goods supplied by the petitionertorespondentno.2,part-paymentswerereceived.However,asnow a sum of Rs. 2,48,227/- still remains outstanding towards the respondents. Despite repeated requests and demands made by the petitioner, the said amount has not been paid till date. Hence, the present suit for recovery has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is againstthefactsandlaw.Itisarguedthatrespondentno.2isanecessaryparty in the present suit, as his presence is necessary in order to enable the court to decide the questions involved in the suit. It is the respondent no. 2 who has actually received the house-keeping services from the petitioner, and the present suit has been filed to claim the amount for the services provided to respondent no. 2.

Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order after due consideration of the material on record.There is no illegality orinfirmity intheimpugned order as thereisnoprivityofcontractbetweenthepetitionerandrespondentno.2.The respondent no. 1 had introduced the petitioner as a vendor/sub-contractor for supply of materials and services. Respondent No. 2 made payments only to Respondent No. 1 against the invoices raised by Respondent No. 1 and never received any invoice from the petitioner. It is further argued that respondent no. 2 was impleaded only to create territorial jurisdiction of the suit. The arguments of the petitioner are without any merits and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Order I of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 deals with parties to the suit. Rule 10(2) deals with power of court to strike out or add the parties. It read as under:

“(2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely