SUMER SINGH SALKAN Vs. REEMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order I propose to decide two applications; one being I.A. No. 3401/2013 and another being I.A. No. 12048/2013 both under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant No. 6 (Ranjit Narayan) and defendant No. 5 (R.S. Yadav) respectively for rejection of the name of defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 6 from the array of parties.

(2.) BY the application being I.A. No. 3401/2013 filed by the defendant No. 6 it was stated that defendant No. 6 was posted as Special Commissioner (Crime) , Delhi Police and is neither a proper nor a necessary party and his presence in the array of parties as defendant No. 6 was not justified. The allegations made against the defendant No. 6 in the plaint does not make out any cause of action against defendant No. 6. The basis of the plaint is acts stated to be done in discharge of duty by defendant No. 6 which cannot be the basis of claiming damages or maintaining the suit as against the defendant No. 6.

(3.) THE plaintiff in his reply has denied the contentions of the defendant No. 6 and stated that defendant No. 6 was responsible for scuttling the transparent proceedings of the CAW cell on the basis of defendant No. 1's false complaint dated 22nd April, 2003 where the untruth in defendant No. 1's complaint dated 6th March, 2003 was being exposed in view of the legal documentary evidence which was submitted to the CAW cell on 24th March, 2003 by the parents of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 wrote two letters dated 8th January, 2003 and 6th March, 2003 in reply to the legal notice dated 20th December, 2012 which showed deliberate abuse of authority by defendant No. 6 as any Senior officer receiving a complaint against a junior official would be expected to get the matter investigated thoroughly.