JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala (Annexure P6), whereby the name of defendant No. 5-M/s [ENTITY], New Delhi (respondent No. 5 herein) has been ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s [ENTITY] (respondent No. l) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,04,57,325.67 against the present petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and respondent No. 5 was arrayed as proforma defendant No. 5. Rest of them were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The present petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the said suit, filed a winding up petition before the Delhi High Court, which was registered as [CASE NUMBER]. After the filing of the present suit for recovery by the plaintiff-respondent No. l, the present petitioner (defendant No. 4 in the suit) filed an application registered as [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER], seeking stay of the recovery suit filed by respondent No. l before the trial court. Accordingly, the recovery suit was stayed by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 30.5.2002. The plaintiff-respondent No. l challenged the order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The said appeal was registered as [CASE NUMBER]. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 9.1.2004 permitted respondent No. l to move in application for deletion of the name of defendant No. 5 (respondent No. 5 herein) from the array of parties. Accordingly, on the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. l, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, vide the impugned order dated 28.1.2004 allowed the application and the name of defendant No. 5 was deleted from the array of parties.
3. The primary contention raised by Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, is that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the said order was passed without issuing notice to the defendants and without hearing them. It has been contended by him that it was incumbent upon the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, to have issued notice of the application to the defendants and the order ought to have been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to them. It has further been contended by the learned Senior Advocate that respondent No. l had concealed the material facts from the knowledge of the trial Court and by getting the ex parte order dated 28.1.2004 the plaintiff-respondent No. l has played fraud on the Court as well as the petitioner and the contesting defendant Nos. 1 to 3 respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein). It has further been contended by Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner, that though the plaintiff is the master of the suit and can pray for deletion of any of the defendants after the filing thereof, but he has no unfettered powers to do so and the Court is duty-bound to issue notice to the opposite party before allowing him to abandon the claim against any defendant. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of the Madras High Court reported as [PRECEDENT], wherein it has been held that the right of the plaintiff is not absolute and cannot be used to play fraud on the parties as well as the Court. It has been observed in the said judgment that mere abandonment of the party alone without the clam against such party and proper amendment of the plaint would be a trick and amounts to deception. Mr. [ENTITY] has also relied on [PRECEDENT], wherein it has been held that the High court has "ample jurisdiction, under [SECTION], [ACT], to set aside an order of a Subordinate Court granting leave to a plaintiff to withdraw a suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit, where such order has been made without opportunity afforded to the defendant to contest the plaintiffs application for withdrawal."
4. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, have been controverted by Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No. l. It has been contended by Mr. [ENTITY] that under [SECTION], [SECTION], [ACT], the plaintiff has liberty to abandon the claim made against any of the defendants at any stage of the suit. It has Often contended by him that the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the suit. It is the plaintiff who has to decide defendants against whom, the claim is to be made. In support of his contention. Mr. [ENTITY] has placed reliance on [PRECEDENT]. It has further been contended by Mr. [ENTITY] that under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the High Court cannot substitute its powers of superintendence with the appellate powers. He contends that the revisional powers of the High Court ought to be exercised in exceptional cases where grave in-justice might have resulted if the impugned order is allowed to stand.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case-law relied upon by them.
6. In the present case, the plaintiff filed an application for deleting the name of respondent-defendant No. 5 from the array of defendants. This application has been allowed by the trial Court. Defendant No. 5, has been stated to be a proforma defendant and in the suit filed by respondent No. l no relief has been claimed against this defendant. Moreover, defendant No. 5 was neither represented before the trial Court nor it has challenged its deletion from the array of parties. If at all, there was any grievance against the deletion of the name, it could only be to defendant-respondent No. 5 and none else. Defendant No. 5 has not challenged the impugned order. In all the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the deletion from the array of parties was challenged by the party whose name had been deleted. In the present case, as already mentioned above, respondent No. 5 has not challenged the impugned order at ail. The petitioner, who is still a party to the suit, is not competent to challenge the impugned order and it cannot have any grievance against the deletion of the name of defendant No. 5. Moreover, in the case reported as [PRECEDENT], it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that mere wrong decision is not a ground for exercising the jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The High Court can intervene under [SECTION] only where it is established that "the lower Court or tribunal has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power, which has resulted in grave injustice to any party." Here, this is not the case at all.
7. Still further, the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the suit and he can very-well choose as to against which party he wants claim as relief. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent No. l was well within its rights to pray for deletion of the name of defendant No. 5 from the array of defendants. A perusal of the impugned order shows that defendant No. 5 was only a proforma defendant. Hence, the plaintiff could always pray for deletion of its name from the array of defendants.
8. In the light of the above, it is held that there is not infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is without any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.