INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION Vs. AZIZ FATIMA HASNAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1982 of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code.

(2.) Briefly these are the facts. Smt. Aziz Fatima Hasnain, plaintiff- respondent No. 1 filed a suit for Rs. 50,000/. as damages against Pakistan International Airlines (defendant No. 1- Respondent No. 2) and Inter- national Air Transport Authority Canada, (petitioner-defendant No 2) She has alleged that she was scheduled to travel on 29th August, 1980 by Pakistan International Airlines flight from New Delhi to Karachi and Karachi to Jeddah by Flight No. PK 733, that she had a valid ticket, which was handed over to her by the Pakistan International Airlines office (defendant No. 1) at New Delhi, that her ticket was okayed, that she reached the air port on 29th August, 1980 in time and after necessary formalities she boarded the plane but she was bodily removed from the plane. On account of the alleged humiliation etc, she has claimed Rs. 50,000.00 against defendant No. 1 by way of damages. No relief is claimed against defendant No. 2. The petitioner made an application dated 15th March, 1982 under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code that the plaintiff wrongly described it as International Air Transport Authority' when it was actually known as International Air Transport Association'. The petitioner has also alleged that the relief sought by the plaintiff is only against Pakistan International Airlines (defendant No. 1) and the petitioner was never involved, that the plaintiff has not made any allegation or claim against defendant No. 2, that it is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It was therefore prayed that the name of defendant No. 2 be struck out from the plaint under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code. The plaintiff contested the application.

(3.) The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the application was not filed at a proper stage and it was not proper to strike out the name of defendant No. 2, that the question of misjoinder is to be decided in the light of the pleadings at the relevant stage and that the defendant No. 2 has not filed its written statement.