(1.) The present appeal is filed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 1967 challenging the order dated 19.07.2013 of the Joint Registrar whereby the application of the appellant/defendant No.3 i.e. I.A. No. 15368/2013 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being deleted as party was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, recovery and injunction. Plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. The son of plaintiff No.1 late Sh. Akash Chittranshi who was lawyer by profession, was living in New Delhi. He died at a very young age on account of massive heart attack. The controversy revolves around his estate. It is stated that there are only two Class 1 legal heirs, namely, plaintiff No.1 the mother and the minor daughter who is living with the divorced wife of said deceased son. It is averred in the plaint that on account of the acts and advise of defendants, certain amount of money from the bank account of Sh. Akash Chittranshi was diverted by the defendants into the account of defendant No.4 with the assurance that this would help in keeping the money out of the reach of the Ex-wife of Sh. Akash Chittranshi and that once the matter is sorted out, the money would be transferred back to the plaintiff from the account of defendant No.4.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 has argued that the present application filed by defendant No.3 was liable to be allowed as no relief for damages has been claimed and the suit is hit by Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act. It is stressed that in the entire plaint there is no averment made against defendant No.3 and that she has been added as a party only to harass her inasmuch as she is the wife of defendant No.1. It is stressed that a perusal of the plaint would show that there is no allegation made that defendant No.3 was a party to the alleged fraudulent agreement or a beneficiary. It is stated that said defendant No.3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party.