MTNL Vs. V K JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and the Deputy General Manager (Legal) of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (in short MTNL), have filed this revision petition, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.10.1997, by which the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VI, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, for deletion of certain averments claimed to be scandalous, unnecessary and vexatious. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge had, however, permitted the deletion of the General Manager, MTNL, from the array of defendants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revision petition may be briefly noted :

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the application, holding that the averments made in the plaint are based on facts, which are required to be proved by the plaintiff/respondent, to establish the claim in suit during trial. He held that the application filed under Order VI, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, does not seem to be filed bona fide and dismissed the same. As regards the application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Additional District Judge deleted the General Manager, defendant No.2, from the array of defendants holding that he was simply an administrative functionary and no specific allegations had been made against him. However, he declined the prayer of deletion of defendant No.3 viz., Deputy General Manager (Legal) on the ground that he was dealing with the matter in controversy and he was a necessary party to prove the facts of the present case. He held that the defendant No.3, Deputy General Manager (Legal) was responsible for handling of the day-to-day legal affairs of the company and responsible for making the payment to the plaintiff.