ANIDCO LIMITED Vs. DYC SELF HELP GROUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has challenged the order dated 19.3.2012 passed in Money Suit No. 17of 2011 (ANIIDCO "limited v. M/s DYC Self Help Group and Another), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Port Blair had allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 striking out the name of the opposite party, that is the defendant No. 2 from the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) It is submitted by Ms. Nag, the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the order under challenge should not have been passed as, in view of the statements made in the plaint, particularly in paragraph 9 thereof, it is clear that the defendant No. 2 is responsible. Referring to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, submission is that it has to be established by the said defendant No. 2 that she has been improperly joined. Therefore, the order directing deletion of defendant No. 2 can adversely affect the adjudication of the suit. In this context, reference has been made to section 6 and its proviso of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In support of her submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment in R. L Jain v. M/s. K. Guha, 1998 2 CivLJ 631.

(3.) Heard Ms. Nag for the petitioner and Mr. Rao for the opposite party. The question whether the defendant No. 2 has been improperly joined or not should be considered in the background of the plaint in Money Suit No. 17 of 2011. While dealing with the issue, it should be considered whether there is cause of action against the said defendant and whether it has been specifically pleaded in the plaint and consequently whether specific relief has been claimed against the said defendant. Moreover, it should be seen whether the said defendant has a direct link in the litigation and what role the defendant No. 2 has to play for effective adjudication.