When any party can be deleted from any suit?

The petitioner is also an employee in the
department of Electricity. She is working as a Clerk. The
petitioner has no authority as regards the order of transfer.
Allegation of the respondent no.1 that because he took some
action against the petitioner, the department transferred the
petitioner. What the respondent no.1 has given is the reason
for transfer, but he has not stated that the petitioner had any
authority to transfer him. The allegations of the respondent
will be dealt with by the department. If necessary the
department may choose to examine the petitioner, but since no
relief is prayed for against the petitioner, there is no need to
join her in the suit. The petitioner is a Government servant and
because she is needlessly joined in the suit, her duties are
affected as she has to attend the dates in the suit.
I find absolutely no warrant to continue the
petitioner in the suit as a party defendant. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
 WRIT PETITION NO. 442 OF 2014
Mrs. Jayashree A. Hegde

Versus
 Mr. Ashok Padwalkar

 CORAM: N. M. JAMDAR, J.
 DATE: 26 FEBRUARY, 2015.
Citation; 2015(6) MHLJ 809

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Respondents have been already served.
By the order dated 17 February, 2015, the matter
was posted for final disposal. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the advocate for the respondent no.1 in
the Trial Court has given an endorsement on the notice that he
has no authority to represent the respondent. The
communication is taken on record.
3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order
dated 3 April, 2014, passed by the learned District Judge,
Panaji, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under
Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking her
deletion from the array of parties in the suit instituted by
respondent no.1.
4. The respondent no.1 is employed with the
Department of Electricity in the State of Goa as an Assistant
Engineer. He was posted at Canacona. An order of transfer
came to be issued to the respondent no.1, which was
challenged by respondent no.1 by filing a civil suit in the
Court of District Judge, Panaji.
5. By the interim order, the order of transfer of
respondent no.1 has been stayed by the leaned District Judge.
In the suit, the petitioner has been joined as party defendant.
The respondent no,1 has averred in the plaint that since he
took some administrative action against the petitioner, the
respondent no.1 was transferred.
6. An application was moved by the petitioner
seeking a deletion as no relief is prayed for against her. This
application has been rejected by the impugned order by the
learned District Judge on the ground that the transfer has been
effected because he had issued certain office orders to the
petitioner and therefore, she was a proper party.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The respondent no.1, inspite of various opportunities has not
remained present. The averments made in the petition have
not been controverted.
8. The petitioner is also an employee in the
department of Electricity. She is working as a Clerk. The
petitioner has no authority as regards the order of transfer.
Allegation of the respondent no.1 that because he took some
action against the petitioner, the department transferred the
petitioner. What the respondent no.1 has given is the reason4
for transfer, but he has not stated that the petitioner had any
authority to transfer him. The allegations of the respondent
will be dealt with by the department. If necessary the
department may choose to examine the petitioner, but since no
relief is prayed for against the petitioner, there is no need to
join her in the suit. The petitioner is a Government servant and
because she is needlessly joined in the suit, her duties are
affected as she has to attend the dates in the suit.
9. I find absolutely no warrant to continue the
petitioner in the suit as a party defendant. The respondent
no.1 has not bothered to appear in the petition and and stay
of transfer order has continued.
10. The petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly
rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “a”. The
application filed by the petitioner dated 27 August 2013 is
allowed. No order as to costs. Interim order granted in this
petition stand vacated. The learned Additional Government
Advocate states that the respondent-department will place the
order on the file of the learned Judge.
 N. M. JAMDAR, J.
Ap/-

Print Page