Proper party under Order I Rule 10 CPC retained where prima facie nexus with the claim appears on record.

A defendant should not be deleted from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC where the record prima facie shows a possible contractual or legal nexus with the subject matter of the claim. Here, the court found that correspondence and invoices indicated an express or implied obligation concerning the C-Form issue and the recovery claim, so defendant no. 2 remained a proper party. The court also noted that any question about ultimate execution or liability could be addressed at the decree stage. The suit was therefore permitted to proceed against both defendants, with final liability left for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant no. 2 was liable to be deleted from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The application for deletion was opposed on the ground that the record showed a letter from defendant no. 2 seeking particulars for issuance of C-Form and invoices allegedly raised in its name. On that basis, the Court held that at this stage it would not be proper to strike out defendant no. 2, as the material on record prima facie indicated an express or implied obligation relating to the C-Form and the recovery claim itself included that component. The Court also noted that the question of how any decree would ultimately be executed against the defendants could be determined at the stage of decree.

Conclusion: Defendant no. 2 was held to be a proper party, and the request for deletion was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The suit was permitted to proceed against both defendants, leaving the issue of ultimate liability for determination in the course of trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A party should not be struck off at the impleadment stage where the record prima facie discloses a possible contractual or legal nexus with the subject matter of the claim and the party's presence may be necessary for effective adjudication.

---