1985 (4) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the facts. Smt. Aziz Fatima Hasnain, plaintiff- respondent No. 1 filed a suit for Rs. 50,000/. as damages against Pakistan International Airlines (defendant No. 1- Respondent No. 2) and Inter- national Air Transport Authority Canada, (petitioner-defendant No 2) She has alleged that she was scheduled to travel on 29th August, 1980 by Pakistan International Airlines flight from New Delhi to Karachi and Karachi to Jeddah by Flight No. Pk 733, that she had a valid ticket, which was handed over to her by the Pakistan International Airlines office (defendant No. 1) at New Delhi, that her ticket was okayed, that she reached the air port on 29th August, 1980 in time and after necessary formalities she boarded the plane but she was bodily removed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hin the meaning of Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code. (5) Order 1 rule 10(2) of Code reads as under : "COURT may strike out or add parties (2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." Sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat defendant No. 2 has been arrayed as a proforma defendant because it is a proper party as defendant No. 1 is a member of defendant No. 2. No other allegation concerning defendant No. 2 has been made in the prayer. In the prayer clause a decree for Rs. 50,000.00 is claimed against defendant No. 1 only by way of damages. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has not pointed out any allegation in the plaint concerning defendant No. 2. As a matter of fact there is neither any allegation nor any claim against defendant No. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff refers to para 28 of the plaint. This is prayer clause, where the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for Rs. 50,000.00 against defendant No. 1. She has also prayed for award of costs and any ....