S.P. SINGH  Vs PIYUSH AGARWAL

CM(M) 453/2020 Page 1
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 14.01.2021

+ CM(M) 453/2020 & CM No.22687/2020
S.P. SINGH & ORS . ….. Petitioners
Through Mr.S.B.Upadhyay, Sr. Adv.
with Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Adv.
with Mr.Ram Niwas, Asstt.
Legal Manager (DTTDC).
versus

PIYUSH AGARWAL & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr.Dinesh Goyal & Mr.Rupesh
Goyal, Advs. for R -1.
Mr.S.B.Upadhyay, Sr. Adv.
with Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Adv.
for R -2 with Mr.Ram Niwas,
Asstt. Legal Manager
(DTTDC).

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been held by video conferencing.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated
03.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -01 (South
East), Saket Court , Delhi in CS DJ 1493/2017, Piyush Agarwal v.
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd
2021:DHC:158
CM(M) 453/2020 Page 2
dismissing the application of the defendant nos.2 and 5 seeking their
deletion from the array of defendants.
3. At the outset, the learned senior couns el for the p etitioners
submits that an application for deletion of the defendant nos.2 to 6,
that is, the petitioners herein was filed before the learned Trial Court
and, a separate application seeking deletion of only defendant nos.2
and 5 was also filed. The order therefor e in a way di smiss es the
application filed by all the petitioners.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint filed by the
respondent no.1 before the learned Trial Court did not disclose any
cause of action against the petitio ners herein. In this regard, the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn my reference to
the various allegations made in the plaint.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1
submits that as allegation s of mala fide have been made again st the
petiti oners in the plaint, they were necessary and proper part ies in the
suit and the learned Trial Court has therefore rightly dismissed the
application filed by the petitioners seeking their deletion. In this
regard , he has placed reliance on the judgment s of this Court in Indian
Hotel s Company Limited v. Binu Anand Khanna & Ors. , 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 55 and Anjum Nath v. British Airways PLC & Ors ., 2005
SCC OnLine Del 1092. Further relying upon Order VI Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , he submits that circumstances from
which malice is to be inferred need not be pleaded in the plaint ; it is
sufficient to plead malice as a fact alone.
2021:DHC:158
CM(M) 453/2020 Page 3
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties.
7. A reference to the allegations made in the plaint would first to
be apposite. It is not disputed that the respondent no.1 retired as Senior
Chief Manager from the respondent no.2 on 30.09.2016. The plaint
avers delay in payment of the retiral benefits , though admitting that
the respondent no .1 was paid the leave encashment amount on
07.10.2016 and the retirement gratuity on 04.11.2016. The respondent
no.1 has filed the suit claiming the following relief:
“(i) To pay a sum of Rs.21,275/ – to the Plaintiff towards
loss of interest on account of delay ed payment of his
retiral dues ;
(ii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ – to the Plaintiff on
account of compensation for mental pain, agony,
harassment and humiliation caused to him on account of
wrongful, mala fide and illega l withholding of his retiral
dues and not paying the same on the date of his
retirement ;
(iii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/ – to the Plaintiff on
account of damages for loss of reputation caused to him
as a result of wrongful, illegal and mala fi de withhol ding
of his retiral dues and not paying the same on the date of
his retirement ;
(iv) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ – to the Plaintiff towards
the cost of legal notice served upon Defendants ;
(v) To allow pendente -lite and future interest @ 18%
per an num on the decretal amount in favour o f the
Plaintiff ;
(vi) To allow costs of the present suit in favour of the
Plaintiff.”
2021:DHC:158
CM(M) 453/2020 Page 4

8. The allegations against the petitioners are contained in
paragraph 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint , which are reproduced herein
below:
“4. That Defendants No. 2 to 6 a s Managing Director
& CEO, Financial Controller (I/ C), Senior Chief
Manager (Vigilance), Chief Manager (Personnel) and
Manager (Personnel) respectively of Defendant No.1
Corporation were directly responsible for sanct ion and
payment of Plaintiff ’s retiral dues at the time of his
retirement. However, Defendants No. 2 to 6 nurtured
personal grudge s against the Plaintiff and conspired
together to harass, humiliate, mali gn, disgrace and
defame him. In pursuance of their co nspiracy, the
Defendants wrongfully, ma lafidely and illegally withheld
Plaintiff’s retiral dues at the time of his retirement
causing him immense mental pain, agony, harassment,
humiliation and loss of reputation besides causing him
pecuniary loss.
xxxxx
7. That having achieved their wrongful, mala fide and
illegal object, the Defendants sanctioned payment of
Plaintiff’s gratuity and leave encashment amount soon
after his retirement vide office orders dated 07.10.2016
without any vigilance, clearance whatso ever and the
leave encashment amount of Rs.10,78,435/ – was directly
disbursed in his account on 07.10.2016 while the
retirement gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/ – was paid to
him on 04.11.2016 vide cheque no. 92264 dated
03.11.2016.
8. That as per record re ceived by the Plaintiff under
the Right to Information Act from Defendant No. 1
Corporation, all the concerned departments had granted
2021:DHC:158
CM(M) 453/2020 Page 5
their no objection for grant of sanction and payment of
Plaintiff’s retiral dues by 16.09.2016 though the process
of depa rtmental clearance in Plaintiff’s case was
belatedly commenced under signatures of Defendant
No.6 vide U.O. Note No. Per/1048/4/1981/DTTDC /PF
(Z)/1829 dated 16.08.2016. However, Defendants No.
2, 3, 5 and 6 in furtherance of their conspiracy
deliberately did not sanction payment of Plaintiff’ s
retiral dues on the pretext of non -receipt of vigilance
clearance.
9. That Defendant No. 4 was at the relevant time
heading the Vigilance Division in Defendant No.1
Corporation as its Senior Chief Manager (Vigilance )
and was squarely responsible for time ly grant of
vigilance clearance, if required any, but he deliberately,
wrongfully and malafidely withheld the same in
furtherance of conspiracy with ot her Defendants, who
also deliberately turned a blind eye and d id not take
further necessary steps in the matter.
10. That the Plaintiff was very much entitled to receive
his retiral dues on the date of his retirement and
Defendants’ act of withholding Plaintiff’s retiral dues at
the time of his retirement was on the face of it wrongful,
malicious and illegal in nature. The Plaintiff has not
only suffered loss of interest on account of delayed
payment of his gratuity and leave encashment amount by
the Defendants but he has also undergone immense
mental pai n, agony, harass ment and humiliation besides
suffering tremendous loss of reputation on account of
wrongful, mala fide and illegal acts/omissions on part of
Defendants and is entitled t o be compensated for the
same.”

9. A reading of the above averments in the plaint woul d clearly
show that barring making gene ral and vague allegations of mala fide
2021:DHC:158
CM(M) 453/2020 Page 6
against the petitioners, no particulars thereof have been given in the
plaint. The plaint has to be read in holistic and meaningful manner.
Vexatious suits are to be nubbed at it s bud. The plaint clearly
complains about delay in sanction of the post retir al benefits to the
respondent no.1. Though the respondent no . 1 avers malafide against
the petitioners, not even a reason for harbo ring such malafide has been
asserted. All the pe titioners are/were officers of respondent no. 2 at
differen t positions. Continuation of such a suit against them will
certainly cause immense injustice.
10. This Court in Anjum Nath v. British Airways PLC & Ors. ,
2007 SCC OnLine Del 758 , which is an orde r passed subsequent to
the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1
reported as 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1092 , in the same proce edings has
observed as under:
“9. Now in the present case, there are no allegations,
whatsoever, of any dures s or coercion attributed to
defendant nos. 2 and 3. No such role is even at tributed to
them. Therefore, the question of the plaint containing any
particulars, much less material particulars in respect of
duress or coercion against defendant nos. 2 and 3 do es
not arise at all.
Even Order 7 Rule 11 empowers the Court to reject a
plaint where it fails to disclose cause of action. The plaint
may be total ly rejected or may be rejected against a
particular defendant, if no cause of action is disclosed
against all the defendants or a particular defendant
respectively. ”

2021:DHC:158
CM(M) 453/2020 Page 7
11. In Indian Hotel s Company Limited (supra) , this Court was
considering the case where specific averment s had been made against
the defendants who sought their deletion. In fact, this Court observe d
as under:
“17. In this case, there is no denial that the plaint does
contain averments suggest ing a concerted action, or
conspiracy between the various defendants (includi ng
those on whose behalf Indian Hotels has moved for
deletion from the array of par ties). The court cannot in
the absence of a full trial comment on the strength or
weakness of th ose averments; nor can it dismiss the
charges as vague or vexatious, with the definiteness
that Indian Hotels’ counsel does. If the law as to
pleadings is that every averment, which constitutes a
step in outlining the cause of action motivating the
litigat ion is to be taken at face value and evaluated on
the basis of materials and evidence adduced during the
trial, unless either the action itself is barred, or th e
plea is so prohibited by some law the Court cannot
preclude trial. Such being the case, it is inconceivable
for a Court to say that the plaintiff should be precluded
from leading evidence which any defendant may have
to answer during the trial. That such would undeniably
be the case, is undisputed by the appellant, because
there is no manner a cour t of law can conclude that a
group of individuals or some of them acted in co ncert
or conspired in some manner, without hearing them or
taking their account int o consideration. That is quite
simply, the rationale for rejecting the plea of the
appellants. T he court is also mindful that (a) besides
the liberty given by the Division B ench the appellant
has not adverted to any material and (b) the appellant
cannot sa y that any finding or submission on merits as
to the truth or correctness of the assertions made
individually (which might ultimately lead up to liability
that might be born e solely by the seventh defendant)
2021:DHC:158
CM(M) 453/2020 Page 8
against any individual defendant, can be conside red in
their absence.”
12. The said case would therefore be clearly distinguishable to the
facts of th e present case.
13. As obse rved above , in the present case, I find that the plaint
does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioners and they
are neither necessary nor proper part ies to the suit.
14. In view of the above, I find merit in the present petition. The
petition is allowed . The order dated 03.03.2020 of the learned Trial
Court is set aside and the petitioners are ordered to be delete d from the
array of parties.
15. The parties shall bear their own costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 14, 2021/Arya

2021:DHC:158