Order VII Rule 11 limits deletion of parties where the plaint discloses a cause of action; party description was corrected only for one entity.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint can be rejected only on the plaint averments, and where specific allegations disclose a cause of action against defendants Nos. 3 and 4, they cannot be deleted as unnecessary or improperly joined at that stage; their impleadment was therefore upheld. A single legal entity does not become two separate defendants merely because it operates from different addresses, so the party description should reflect one defendant with multiple office addresses. The memo of parties was accordingly directed to be corrected only to that limited extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were liable to be deleted from the suit or the plaint was liable to be rejected against them under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether British Airways Plc could be treated as two separate defendants merely because it had different addresses, and whether the memo of parties required amendment on that account.

Issue (i): Whether defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were liable to be deleted from the suit or the plaint was liable to be rejected against them under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The plaint contained specific averments against defendants Nos. 3 and 4 alleging their personal involvement in the events giving rise to the claimed relief. For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint averments could be examined, and on those averments the Court found that a cause of action was disclosed against them. The pleaded facts also justified their presence for an effective and complete adjudication of the disputes, so they could not be treated as improperly joined or as unnecessary parties at that stage.

Conclusion: The request for deletion of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 was rejected, and the plaint was not rejected against them.

Issue (ii): Whether British Airways Plc could be treated as two separate defendants merely because it had different addresses, and whether the memo of parties required amendment on that account.

Analysis: A legal entity does not become two distinct entities merely because it carries on business from more than one address. The Court held that the company should be shown as one defendant, while its different offices and addresses could be mentioned as part of the description. The memo of parties therefore needed correction to reflect the true identity of the single legal entity.

Conclusion: The memo of parties was directed to be amended so that British Airways Plc would stand as a single defendant with its different addresses.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the party description of British Airways Plc, while the challenge to the impleadment of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 failed.

---