Delhi District Court
Desh Raj vs Neelam Gupta And Ors on 24 March, 2014
DESH RAJ VS NEELAM GUPTA AND ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL: CJ04 (SOUTH):
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS No.117/2013
In the matter of :
DESH RAJ ... Plaintiff
Versus
NEELAM GUPTA AND ORS ... Defendants
ORDER
(on application under Order I Rule 10 CPC)
1. Vide this order of mine, I shall decide the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC moved on behalf of defendants no.2 to 6 (applicants).
2. Brief background of this case is that plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants averring therein that defendant no.1 is the wife of plaintiff. That defendants no.2, 3, 4 and 6 are the relatives of defendant no.1. That defendant no.5 is the colleague of defendant no.1. That plaintiff and defendant no.1 have been staying separately since October 2011 on account of strained relations between them. That defendant no.1 has been harassing and defaming the plaintiff in collusion with defendants CS No. 117/2013 1 of 5 DESH RAJ VS NEELAM GUPTA AND ORS no. 2 to 6. Hence, defendants be restrained from making representation at the office/residential locality of the plaintiff and also that defendants be restrained from circulating defamatory material regarding the plaintiff.
3. The present application has been moved by the applicants averring that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the applicants. That allegations against the applicants are vague and ambiguous. That applicants have been impleaded in the present case only to harass them as well as defendant no.1. Hence, applicants be deleted from the array of parties of the present suit.
4. Reply to the present application has been filed by the plaintiff. It has been submitted that defendant no.1 has been acting due to the provocation and assistance of the applicants. That the applicants provoked defendant no.1 to file various criminal cases against the plaintiff. Hence, the present application be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments and also gone through the case file carefully.
6. As per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Court may at any CS No. 117/2013 2 of 5 DESH RAJ VS NEELAM GUPTA AND ORS stage of the proceedings add any person as plaintiff or defendant whose presence may be necessary in order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. It was held in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakpur 1999 (2) SCC 577, that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person at any stage of the proceedings if presence of such person is found necessary to effectively or completely adjudicate upon all the controversies involved in the case. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC also empowers the Court to strike out the name of any party joined improperly. Distinction must be drawn in this regard between a necessary and a proper party. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively passed. On the other hand, a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of question involved in proceedings.
7. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has argued that the plaint does not show any specific role of the applicants and that no specific relief has been claimed against them. Hence, she has argued that they be deleted from the array of parties. However, I do not find much merit in this argument of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants. Para 9 of the plaint specifically mentions that CS No. 117/2013 3 of 5 DESH RAJ VS NEELAM GUPTA AND ORS defendant no. 5 had helped defendant no.1 in procuring stolen personal data and photographs so as to defame the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has argued that there is no proof regarding the same and that the data being referred to was in the personal laptop of defendant no. 5 and hence, there is no question of theft of any data. However, the truth or falsity of the said allegation of the plaintiff and averment of defendant no.5 that the said data was in her own laptop and not stolen is a matter of trial to be proved or disproved upon leading of evidence by both the sides. The said matter cannot be decided at this stage. As far as other applicants are concerned, specific allegations have been leveled by the plaintiff against them also. It has been mentioned in para 17 of the plaint that defendant no.1 in connivance with other defendants started making calls to the friends and office colleagues of the plaintiff. Again, para 18 of the plaint says that defendant no.1 alongwith other defendants visited the office of the plaintiff so as to defame him. Further, para 21 of the plaint clearly mentions that all the defendants had created a scene at the residence of the plaintiff on 26.01.2012, 12.02.2012, 26.02.2012 and 27.02.2012. Thus, it is clear that specific allegations have been leveled against the applicants as well as defendant no.1. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has CS No. 117/2013 4 of 5 DESH RAJ VS NEELAM GUPTA AND ORS argued that if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the alleged acts of the applicants leading to his defamation, his remedy is to file criminal case for defamation against the applicants. However, I do not find much merit in this argument of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants. Availability of an option to file criminal case for defamation against the applicants cannot bar the right of the plaintiff to file a civil suit for injunction for restraining the applicants from defaming him. Criminal remedy against defamation is available as an addition to civil remedies and not in exclusion of the same. It must also be noted here that specific relief has been sought by the plaintiff in the present suit qua all the defendants, including the applicants.
8. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are proper and necessary parties to the present suit. Hence, present application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is dismissed. The application stands disposed off accordingly.
Announced in the open Court on 24th Day of March 2014 (Rajat Goyal) CJ04 (South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/24.03.2014 CS No. 117/2013 5 of 5