The plaintiff has made averments in the plaint against the defendant no. 7, which are sufficient in nature for the defendant no. 7 to be a necessary and a proper party for the adjudication of the suit.

CM(M) 37/2019

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 16^th December, 2021

Pronounced on: 10^th January, 2022

+

CM(M) 37/2019

SUMER SINGH SALKAN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Malavika Rajkotia with Mr.

Mayank Grover, Advocates.

Versus

VIKRAM SINGH MANN & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Dr. Reema Salkan, R-2 in person and

Power of Attorney Holder for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

seeks setting aside of (i) the order dated 6^th 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

12^th July, 2018, whereby the review filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff

[hereinafter ‘plaintiff’] against the order dated 6^th February, 2018 has been

dismissed.

2.

Notice was issued in the present petition on 11^th 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 16^th December, 2021 and thereafter, the judgment was reserved.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000117

CM(M) 37/2019

Page 2 of 10

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 24^th 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 3^rd 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 11^th 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 10^th 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 plaintiff’s 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.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000117

CM(M) 37/2019

Page 3 of 10

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 20^th 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 1^st

February, 2016, a Division Bench of this Court d