JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. Defendant no.2 has filed the present application being G.A. No. 1 of 2023 for rejection of plaint against the defendant no. 2 or in the alternative to delete the name of the defendant no. 2 from the array of the party in the plaint filed in CS-COM 470 of 2024 (Old No. C.S. 35 of 2023). In the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree against the defendant no. 1 for a sum of USD 1,40,235.00 and USD 600 Per month on account of storage and security charges against the defendant no.1 and other prayers including interest. Admittedly in any of the prayer of the suit, the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief against the defendant no. 2. 2. As per the case made out by the plaintiff, after negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, defendant no.1 issued purchased order upon the plaintiff on 18th June, 2019 of 100 sets (100 units each of male and female) of Non-Shock MCA DA Type Coupler (Drawing No. 27413/11) supplied as complete units -complaint equivalent Coupler sets (Paris) as per plaintiffs drawing No. ADE 09-53 and for the consideration of USD 430,000.00 with several terms and conditions out of which one condition that the inspection by Bureau Veritas or SGS, being the defendant no.2 herein at the plaintiff’s factory before shipment. 3. The plaintiff has made the following averments in the plaint with respect to the defendant no.2 : “3. The defendant no. 2 is inter-alia engaged in providing services of inspection, testing, verification and certification with tremendous infrastructure throughout the world. The defendant No. 2 carries on business from Ecospace, Block 3A, 2nd Floor, East Wing, 11/F/II, Action Area-II, Rajarhat, Newtown, Kolkata-7000160 outside the jurisdiction aforesaid. 9.(e) Inspection: By Bureau Veritas or SGS, being the Defendant no. 2 herein at the Plaintiffs factory before shipment. 38. Ultimately, on January 31, 2020, the plaintiff received an email from the defendant no. 1, which was issued from its office outside the jurisdiction aforesaid and which was received by the plaintiff within the jurisdiction aforesaid, wherefrom it appeared that the defendant no. 1 had appointed the defendant no. 2 as the inspecting agents for inspection of the finished goods under the Purchase Order dated June 18, 2019 in place and instead of RITES. 39. By an email dated February 11, 2020 the defendant no. 1 had appointed the defendant no. 2 as the inspecting agents for inspection of the finished goods under the Purchase Order dated June 18, 2019 in place and instead of RITES. 39. By an email dated February 11, 2020 the defendant no. 1 inter-alia requested the defendant no. 2 to send its most experienced inspectors having good knowledge of couplers to inspect the couplers manufactured by the plaintiff. Such request was made by the defendant no. 1 to ensure that the couplers manufactured by the plaintiff were in accordance with the original Drawing No. 27413 /11 and the manufacturers drawing No. ADE/09-53 that was approved by the defendant no. 1's client, i.e. Tanzanian Railways. The defendant no. 1 by its email dated February 14, 2020 had forwarded the said email dated February 13, 2020 to the plaintiff. 40. The defendant no. 2 on February 17, 2020 caused inspection of the 1st lot of 50 sets of couplers at the plaintiff's plant, outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The defendant no. 2 handed over a copy of the inspection report to the plaintiff. The plaintiff by its email dated February 17, 2020 inter-alia forwarded the inspection report to the defendant no. 1 and requested the said defendant to provide details of the shipping agent. The plaintiff further informed the defendant no. 1 the dimensions of the containers required for transportation of the said couplers. 50. After manufacturing the balance 33 sets of couplers, the plaintiff duly requested the defendant no. 1 to have the same inspected by the defendant no. 2, its inspectors and take delivery of the same. On June 27, 2020, the defendant no. 1 duly informed the plaintiff that it had instructed the defendant no. 2 to cause the inspection of the balance quantity of 33 sets of couplers and the same would be conducted on or after July 10, 2020. When the Plaintiff contacted the defendant no. 2, it was/ informed that they were yet to receive any instructions for inspection from the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff duly intimated the said fact to the defendant no. 1 by its email dated July 2, 2020. By another email dated July 7, 2020, the plaintiff repeated and reiterated that it was yet to receive any instruction from the defendant no. 2 for inspection of the balance goods. 1. The plaintiff duly intimated the said fact to the defendant no. 1 by its email dated July 2, 2020. By another email dated July 7, 2020, the plaintiff repeated and reiterated that it was yet to receive any instruction from the defendant no. 2 for inspection of the balance goods. The Plaintiff forwarded the balance proforma invoice for USD 95000 to the defendant no. 1 for payment. In response, the defendant no. 1 informed the plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 would contact it for inspection. 51. The plaintiff states that while the inspection for the balance quantity of 33 sets of couplers was in the process and 24 sets having been duly inspected by the defendant no. 2,-the plaintiff received an email dated July 15, 2020 from the defendant no. 1. The Plaintiff was shocked to go through the contents of the said email. In its email, the defendant no. 1 inter-alia alleged that the TRC Couplers manufactured by the plaintiff were not fitting on the wagons. The defendant no. 1 wrongfully and illegally sought to make a purported distinction between drawing nos. ADE/09-53, Z7413/11 and 2713/21 although the same were duly clarified by the plaintiff after which the defendant no. 1 had paid a sum of USD 20,000/-to the plaintiff as aforesaid. The plaintiff denies and disputes each and every allegation contained in the said email dated July 15, 2020. The plaintiff was further shocked to receive another email from the defendant no, 1 herein inter-alia forwarding the letter dated July 15, 2020 of Tanzania Railway Authority purportedly rejecting the 1st lot of 50 couplers manufactured by the plaintiff in accordance with the pre-approved drawing by the said Authority. 52. The plaintiff states that the allegations contained in both the aforesaid emails dated July 15, 2020 are inconsistent and mutually destructive. At the outset, the plaintiff states that it has never claimed that it had previously supplied couplers for wagons to the Tanzanian Railway Authority. The plaintiff states that from a conjoint reading of its quotation dated January 10, 2019 and the defendant no. l's Purchase Order dated June 18, 2019 subsequently amended on December 9, 2019 it is apparent that Z7413/11 is equivalent to ADE/09-53. Furthermore, before commencing its manufacturing the plaintiff had duly forwarded the drawing being drawing No. ADE/09-53 to the defendant no. 1 for approval. The Defendant no. l's Purchase Order dated June 18, 2019 subsequently amended on December 9, 2019 it is apparent that Z7413/11 is equivalent to ADE/09-53. Furthermore, before commencing its manufacturing the plaintiff had duly forwarded the drawing being drawing No. ADE/09-53 to the defendant no. 1 for approval. The Defendant no. 1 after a period of about 26 days forwarded the duly approved drawing to the plaintiff on July 15, 2019. The plaintiff further states that even on September 26, 2019 when the defendant no. 1 raised some concerns regarding the drawings and the plaintiff requested the said defendant to resend the approved drawing, the defendant no. 1 sent the very same drawing that was earlier approved and sent to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has manufactured the couplers in accordance with the drawing approved by the defendant no. 1 and the Tanzanian Railway Authorities. Furthermore, before shipment, the finished goods were duly inspected and approved by the defendant no. 2, being the inspectors appointed by the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff states that it has acted in accordance with the contract between the defendant no. 1 and itself. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Tanzanian Railway Authority. The goods were sold to the defendant no. 1 after its satisfaction of the specification and quality. The defendant no. 1 cannot allege that the couplers manufactured by the plaintiff is not in accordance with the drawings approved by the defendant no. 1 and the Tanzanian Railway Authority. 53. The plaintiff by its email dated July 15, 2020, duly replied to the allegations contained in the defendant no. 1's email dated July 15, 2020 and called upon the said defendant to instruct the defendant no. 2 to cause inspection of the balance 9 sets of couplers to enable it to deliver the balance 33 sets of couplers. The plaintiff in its said email demanded the balance sum of USD 95,000 from the defendant no. 1. The contents of the Plaintiffs email dated July 15, 2020 are all true and correct. 77. The plaintiff submits that, inasmuch as the defendant no. 1 took delivery of the goods of the plaintiff on the basis of the report issued by the defendant no. 2, the presence of the defendant no. 2 is crucial for adjudication of the present dispute. As such, the defendant no. 77. The plaintiff submits that, inasmuch as the defendant no. 1 took delivery of the goods of the plaintiff on the basis of the report issued by the defendant no. 2, the presence of the defendant no. 2 is crucial for adjudication of the present dispute. As such, the defendant no. 2 is a proper and/or a necessary party to the present proceedings.” 4. After reading the plaint as a whole, it transpires that the plaintiff has relied upon the report of the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff has also enclosed the reports and the communications made between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.2 has inspected the materials and the defendant no.1 took delivery of the materials of the plaintiff on the basis of the report issued by the defendant no.2. 5. Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as follows : “Order 1, Rule 10. – Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. (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.” 6. The plaintiff has relied upon the report provided by the defendant no. 2 and the plaintiff has to prove the said report. The plaintiff cannot say that the defendant no.2 has provided report after inspection of materials of the plaintiff which was supplied to the defendant no. 1, thus the defendant no. 2 is the proper party for adjudication of the suit. 7. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 (Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another) and held that : “7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. 7. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 (Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another) and held that : “7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled : it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.” 8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon the judgment reported in (1995) 3 SCC 147 (Anil Kumar Singh vs. Shivnath Mishra) and held that : “10. A person may be added as a party-defendant to the suit though no relief may be claimed against him/her provided his/her presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the suit. Such a person is only a proper party as distinguished from a necessary party. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum [ 1959 SCR 1111 : AIR 1958 SC 886 ], in a suit instituted for a declaration of legal status as a married wife, the question arose whether another person claiming to be the third wife and sons through her are necessary and proper party, who sought to come on record under Order 1, Rule 10(2). This Court held that in a suit for declaration as regards status or legal character under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the rule that in order that a person may be added as a party must have a present or direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit, is not wholly applicable, and the rule may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy.” 9. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law. The facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case referred by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law. The facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case referred by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff. 10. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the present application, the plaintiff in paragraph (e) has categorically mentioned that presence of the defendant no. 2 is crucial for proving the fact that they have taken inspection and approved the couplers, which were offered for inspection by the plaintiff. The said averments proves that the plaintiff only for the purpose of proving the documents made the defendant no. 2 as party to the suit, though it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove its case of its own and by not making the defendant no. 2 as party to the suit. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the defendant no.2 is neither the necessary nor the proper party for the purpose of adjudication of the suit, accordingly, the name of the defendant no.2 is deleted from the suit. The department is directed to take appropriate steps by deleting the name of the defendant no.2 from the cause title of the plaint within two weeks from date. The plaintiff is directed to reaffirm and re-verify the affidavit within a week from the date of making necessary correction by the department. 12. G.A. No. 1 of 2023 is disposed of.