JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2007, passed in OMP No.33 of 2006 in Civil Suit No.62 of 2005, by the learned Judge, in rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC by the applicants/defendants, seeking to delete the names of defendants No.5 and 6 from the array of parties, the instant appeal is filed. 2. It is the case of the applicants/defendants that the company was formed by the defendants alongwith defendant No.4, who are the promoters of the said company and continued to remain directors of the company till 1969, resigned from the directorship; that they ceased to have any interest in the said company after their resignation as defendant No.4 expired in the year 1988 and the plaintiff had no enforceable cause of action against defendants No.5 and 6 and their names sought to be deleted from the array of parties. 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, it was held by the impugned order that the question to be decided in the said application is as to whether the present applicants/defendants No.5 and 6 have ceased to be the directors of the company or not and if so, the effect of the said resignation. It was held that in case they are directed to be deleted from the array of the defendants at this stage and subsequently it is held on the basis of the evidence that the liability of the defendants continues, the proceedings conducted in their absence will be vitiated. It is for this reason, the application was dismissed. 4. We have considered the impugned order as well as the contentions advanced. On a careful consideration of all issues involved, we do not find any error in the impugned order. The same has been passed on facts and law. The reasons assigned with regard to dismissal of the said application are just and appropriate. In case the defendants are deleted from the array of the parties and in case it is held that on the basis of the evidence that their liability continues as on the date of the decree, such a decree, is not only not enforceable against them but the entire decree becomes unenforceable. Hence, we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned constitutes a good cause. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 5. Hence, we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned constitutes a good cause. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 5. In view of the long pendency of the suit, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge should dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible, probably even on a day to day basis. Hence, the Registry to list the suit before the concerned Court on 06.04.2021.