Delhi High Court
Sandhya Bindal @ Sandhya Malik vs Mukesh Sharma & Ors. on 31 August, 2022
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 887/2022, CM APPL. 37943/2022 and CM APPL.
37944/2022
SANDHYA BINDAL @ SANDHYA MALIK.... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Jindal, Adv.
Versus
MUKESH SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 31.08.2022
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails the order dated 6th December 2021, passed by the learned
Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 401/2017
(Mukesh Sharma and Ors v. Mamta Gupta). By the impugned order,
the learned ADJ has, adjudicating an application filed by the
defendant in the suit Mamta Gupta, seeking impleadment of certain
parties as additional defendants, allowed the application to the extent
of impleadment of the petitioner Sandhya Bindal, the Principal of
Ramjas School, as a defendant in the suit.
2. The submission of Mr. Sandeep Jindal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner is essentially that the suit is entirely directed against the
defendant Mamta Gupta and that, therefore, there was no justification
for the learned ADJ to implead the petitioner as an additional
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
defendant in the suit.
3. Without going into the details of the controversy in the plaint,
specific allegations of malafides and other associated misdemeanours,
against the petitioner are to be found in the following paras thereof:
"(4) .......
(A) The children of plaintiffs have been
harassed by various mode and ways by the
HOS, management and teachers of said school.
Both the children i.e Aditya Vashisht and Jiya
Vashisht were suspended by the Principal Ms
Sandhya Bindal of Ramjas School..........In her
pursuit to harass the said children of plaintiffs,
the HOS, Ms Sandhya Bindal alongwith Shri
Sandeep Gothwal also wrote defamatory
massages on Whatsapp against plaintiffs & their
children and in this respect a complaint was
given by plaintiff to the P.S.Anand Parbat vide
DD No.50A, dt 24/08/2016 and when no action
was taken by the police, then a criminal
complaint was also filed by plaintiff against the
HOS Smt Sandhya Bindal and anr which is still
pending before concerned Ld MM.Tis Hazari,
Delhi.
(B) That even thereafter, the HOS, Smt
Sandhya Bindal did not stop to defame and
mentally harass the plaintiffs and their children
and continued to write the defamatory and
insulting comments on Whatsapp and further
complaints were given by plaintiffs against HOS
Smt. Sandhya Bindal and defendant.
(C) That on 09/09/2016, a false FIR bearing
no. No. 422/2016 U/S 354/506/34 ,IPC & 12
POSCO Act with P.S. Anand Parbat) was got
registered by HOS Smt Sandhya Bindal against
Deepak Sethi and plaintiff no. l namely Shri
Mukesh Sharma.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
*****
(5) That Chairman, School Management and HOS of
Ramjas School all in unison are carrying forward their
malafide agenda of harassment, false aspersion, imputation,
accusation and mental agony to plaintiffs as well as to other
PTA Members of Ramjas School to pressurize them to give
up their efforts to object the illegalities and misdeeds being
committed in the management of the school and defendant
have also joined the said league against plaintiffs which is
shown from her conduct of harassment of daughter ( Jiya
Vashisht) of plaintiffs and her recent campaign of defamation
and accusation of plaintiffs on Whatsapp Group Class IIIrd
D at the instance and instruction of Chairman, HOS &
Management of Ramjas School.
(6) ......The plaintiff No.1 being mother of Jiya Vashisht,
gave a written complaint dated 24/10/2016 to Sh. B.S. Narula
DCPCR (i.e. Delhi Commission for Protection of Child
Right), Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and to various other concerned
authorities, complaining that her said daughter is being
harassed by Defendant at the instance of School Principal
(Smt. Sandhya Bindal)......
*****
16. That defendant had committed the above inexcusable
act of defamation in connivance and conspiracy with HOS,
Smt. Sandhya Bindal and management of Ramjas School to
degrade and lower the image, respect, reputation and honor of
plaintiffs and their minor children...."
4. Mr. Jindal submitted that the choice of the parties against whom
to proceed is essentially the prerogative of the plaintiff as the
dominus litis instituting the proceedings. In Mumbai International
Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt.
Ltd.1, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, while ordinarily the
(2010) 7 SCC 417
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
principle is that the plaintiff, as the dominus litis, can choose the
parties who he seeks to implead, under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC
is an exception to the said principle. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC
reads thus:
"Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. -
(1) ....
(2) Court may strike out or add parties-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.
5. Clearly, Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers a Court either
suo moto or through an application by a party, to join, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, any party whose presence is necessary in order
to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and
settle all questions involved in the suit.
6. Inasmuch as there are specific allegations on malafides in the
afore-extracted passages from the plaint in the suit instituted by
Respondent 1, the impleadment of the petitioner would definitely be
necessary in adjudication of the said allegations.
7. That apart, it is also well settled, as held, inter alia, in State of
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
Bihar v. P.P. Sharma2, that a party against whom allegations of
malafides are levelled has to be impleaded in the proceedings. The
specific words of the Supreme Court, as contained in para 55 of the
report read thus:
"It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides
or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine as a
party respondent to the proceedings and given an
opportunity to meet those allegations."
8. Mr. Jindal also sought to draw attention to sub paras (A) and
(B) of para 4 of the plaint, to submit that in the said paragraphs, the
respondents-plaintiffs have acknowledged that they were separately
prosecuting the criminal complaints and other proceedings against the
petitioner, qua their grievances against her.
9. To my mind, the submission is completely irrelevant to the
issue in controversy on here. I may, for that purpose, reproduce para
4(A) and 4(B) as under:
"(4) Due to the above support given by the plaintiffs,
both plaintiffs are being victimized by school/HOS and the
management by various modes. A little background and
circumstances of the said harassment are being stated
hereunder:
(A) The children of plaintiffs have been harassed
by various mode and ways by the HOS, management
and teachers of said school. Both the children i.e.
Aditya Vashisht and Jiya Vashisht were suspended by
the Principal Ms Sandhya Bindal of Ramjas School.
Master Aditya Vashisht (aged 13 years) was illegally
suspended for indefinite period by giving a written
1992 Supp (1) SCC 222
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
notice by the HOS of said School on false and
fabricated ground by putting fire crackers in the bag
of Master Aditya Vashsisht. The said suspension of
son of plaintiffs was in violation of Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Jiya
Vashisht was mentally harassed by insulting here in
front of other students and staff and she was also
suspended by the said school without any written
notice. The plaintiff no.2 was constrained to file a
writ petition bearing no. 11195/2016 before Hon'ble
High court of Delhi against the above illegal
suspension of her both child and for harassment. In
her pursuit to harass the said children of plaintiffs, the
HOS, Ms Sandhya Bindal alongwith shri Sandeep
Gothwal also wrote defamatory massages on
Whatsapp against plaintiffs & their children and in
this respect a complaint was given by plaintiff to the
P.S. Anand Parbat vide DD No.50A, dt 24/08/2016
and when no action was taken by the police, then a
criminal complaint was also filed by plaintiff against
the HOS Smt Sandhya Bindal and anr which is still
pending before concerned Ld MM Tis Hazari, Delhi.
The copy of suspension letters, writ petition
bearing no. 11195/2016 before Hon'ble High court of
Delhi filed by the plaintiff no.2 alongiwth order dated
08/03/2017, Two Email Letter dated 14/10/2016 &
21/10/2016 of Sh Devesh Gupat, ex manager of
Ramjas School sent of Sh Raj Gopal ji (Manager of
Ramjas School) and to Principla of Ramjas are
annexed as Annexure -D (Colly).
The physical copy of Whatsapp defamatory
massages written by Smt Sandhya Bindal are annexed
as Annexure-E.
The ocpy of Complaint given b the plaintiffs to
P.S. Anand Parbat, vide DD No. 50A, dt 24/08/2016
agaisnt smt Sandhya Bindal & Anr is annexed as
Annexure-F.
(B) That even thereafter, the HOS, Smt Sandhya
Bindal did not stop to defame and mantally harass the
plaintiffs and their children and continued to write the
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
defamatory and insulting comments on whatsapp and
further complaints were given by Plaintiffs against
HOS Smt. Sandhya Bindal and defendant. The
complaints given by plaintiffs to P.S. Anand Parbat,
Delhi in this respect were DD No. 37B dated
29/11/2019, DD No. 37A dated 15/12/2016, DD No.
7A dated 18/02/2017, DD NO. 38B dated 21/02/207,
DD No 29A dated 26/02/2017. The copies of all the
above complaints are annexed as Annexure-G
(Colly)."
10. It is clear, beyond any measure of doubt that the respondents-
plaintiffs have levelled serious allegations against the petitioner. It is
only as a part of the recital of the facts that they have also alluded to
the fact that other proceedings, including criminal proceedings, are
also to be initiated by them against the petitioner. The reference to the
said proceedings in the plaint cannot be regarded, by any stretch of
imagination as any abandonment, on the part of the respondents, of the
grievances, in the plaint, as directed against the petitioner. The
reliance, by Mr. Jindal, on paras 4(A) and 4(B) of the plaint is,
therefore, completely misconceived.
11. In view of the above, there is obviously no error in the decision
of the learned ADJ to implead the petitioner as an additional defendant
in CS 401/2017.
12. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised at this petition, as, if the
prayers of the petition were to be granted, the suit would proceed and
the allegations against the petitioner would be adjudicated behind her
back. It is difficult, therefore, to appreciate why the petitioner chose
to prefer this petition in the first place. For this reason, in fact, I
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
repeatedly queried of Mr. Jindal as to whether his client would be
willing to have CS 401/2017 adjudicated in her absence. No ready
answer was forthcoming.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed with no
order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 31, 2022
r.bararia
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:00:55
