Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and the Deputy General Manager (Legal) of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (in short MTNL), have filed this revision petition, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.10.1997, by which the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the petitioners application under Order VI, Rule 16, CPC, for deletion of certain averments claimed to be scandalous, unnecessary and vexatious. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge had, however, permitted the deletion of the General Manager, MTNL, from the array of defendants.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition may be briefly noted:

(i) The respondent who is an Advocate by profession, filed a suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of Rs. 1,70,187/-, (Rs. one lakh seventy thousand one hundred eighty seven only) against the MTNL. The respondent also imp leaded the Chief General Manager as defendant No. 2 and the; Deputy General Manager (Legal) and defendant No. 3 in the said suit.

(ii) The respondent had been retained on the panel of Advocate for MTNL. It is the respondents case that the Deputy General Manager (Legal), assigned the cases to respondent to be conducted on behalf of MTNL and passed bills for the professional services rendered for payment. The respondent claims to have performed his work with sincerity, dedication and Professionalism. While filing the suit for recovery of professional fee and for rendition of accounts, the respondent made the averments to the following effect in the plaint and in particular in para 6:

The respondent claimed that defendant No. 1 intentionally delayed the clearance of the bills and caused harassment to the respondent. The respondent also claims to have served a legal notice dated 26.9.1994, to clear the outstanding bills Along with interest. It is claimed by the, respondent that the payment of his bills was delayed and withheld on one excuse, or the other. In the event the respondent tendered is resignation from the panel of MTNL, vide his letter of 5.12.1994 and the pending cases were assigned to other panel Advocates. The respondent claimed that the MTNL thereafter wrongly claimed with a view to harass him that the record of the MTNL relating to the cases had not been returned, to the other Advocates. It is further claimed that as the respondents pending bills were not being cleared, the respondent was told that the bills would be cleared, if he unconditionally withdrew the allegations against the Deputy General Manager (Legal). The respondent claimed that he was compelled to withdraw the complaint against the Deputy General Manager (Legal). The respondent claimed that payment of Rs. 1,65,633/- had been made in part without details. The respondents allegations that the intention of the petitioner and specially that of defendant No. 3, viz., Deputy General Manager, is to delay the payment deprive the petitioner of his legitimate financial gains. The respondent sought a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,70,187/- against the defendants with interest."

(iii) The petitioner in the application moved under Order I, Rule 10(2), CPC, and sought the deletion of the General Manager and the deputy General Manager (Legal), imp leaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3, on the ground that no relief had been sought against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 personally and since the said employees were only the employees of the defendant company, no decree could be passed against them. Another application moved was for deletion of the scandalous, unnecessary and vexatious allegations made against the defendant No. 3 namely Deputy General Manager (Legal).

(iv) The respondent opposed the said application on the ground that the respondent had set out the correct facts and averments made in the plaint were sine qua non for proving the case of the respondent.

3. The learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the application, holding that the averments made in the plaint are based on facts, which are required to be proved by the plaintiff/respondent to establish the claim in suit during trial. He held that the application filed under Order VI, Rule 16, CPC, does not seem to be filed bona fide and dismissed the same.

As regards the application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC, the Learned Additional District Judge deleted the General Manager, defendant No. 2, from the array of defendants holding that he was simply an administrative functionary and no specific allegations had been made against him. However, he declined the prayer of deletion of defendant No. 3 viz., Deputy General Manager (Legal) on the ground that he was dealing with the matter in controversy and he was a necessary party to prove the facts, of the present case. He held that the defendant No. 3, Deputy General Manager (Legal) was responsible for handling of the day-to-day legal affairs of the company and responsible for making the payment to the plaintiff.

4. I have heard Mr. Shailendra Pal, who filed a, caveat on behalf of the respondent as well as Counsel for the petitioner. With the consent of the parties, the revision petition had been taken up for hearing, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved on 19.12.1997.

5. I find that in the suit there is no claim for special damages against the Deputy General Manager (Legal), who has been imp leaded as defendant No. 3. The incumbent of the post has not even been sued in personal capacity. The respondents suit is a suit for recovery of charges for professional services rendered and for rendition of accounts. The services rendered are to the MTNL, who have been imp leaded as defendant No. 1. There is no claim or relief sought in the plaint for damages or special damages from defendant No. 3 viz., Deputy General Manager (Legal) for alleged harassment. Respondent has also served a notice claiming interest. Accordingly, in case it is found that payments have been unjustifiably held up by the acts or omissions of officers and staff of MTNL, respondent may be entitled to interest and costs as claimed. It would, however, be pertinent to notice at this stage, that the respondent has given up his claim for interest till the filing of the suit. Accordingly, the question for grant of interest is confined to pendente lite interest, which is within the discretion of the Court. It is in this background and state of pleadings that the question whether the presence of the Deputy General Manager (Legal) is necessary or proper for an effective adjudication of the matter is to be considered.

6. From the foregoing, it would be seen that the averments made against the Deputy General Manager (Legal) are not relating to material facts, which would be necessary for determining the matter in controversy or effectually and completely adjudicating upon it. The claim of the respondent including that of interest can be adjudicated upon without any reference to the averments made against the Deputy General Manager (Legal). This is especially so since no relief for special damages or otherwise has been sought against Deputy General Manager (Legal), who has not even been, imp leaded in his personal capacity. Perhaps it could have been a different matter if respondent was challenging his termination in the panel or seeking reinstatement or had been claiming special damages personally against the Deputy General Manager i.e. defendant No. 3. It is pertinent to notice that the complaints and allegations against Deputy General Manager (Legal) had also been withdrawn by respondent. Although the respondent now claim to have done the same under pressure and due to financial hardship. In these circumstances, the presence of the Deputy General Manager (Legal) is not at all necessary or proper for adjudication of the matter in controversy.

7. The impugned order insofar as it holds that the presence of the Deputy General Manager (Legal) is necessary because he had dealt with the matter in controversy in the course of his duties is vitiated by material irregularity. An employee or officer cannot be imp leaded in the suit simply on the ground that he had dealt with the matter while discharging his duties for the employer.

8. Coming to the question of allegations made in para 6 referred to earlier and in para 15, wherein it is averred, "the intention of the defendants and specialty of the defendant No. 3 viz. Deputy General Manager (Legal) is to delay the payment and specifically deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate financial gains." The learned Additional District Judge has erred in holding that the averments made in the plaint are based on facts and which are required to be proved by the plaintiff during the course of proceedings. As noticed earlier, in the plaint no relief has been sought on the ground of mala fide or dishonest conduct of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 is not even imp leaded in his personal capacity. On the other hand, even the claim for interest till the date of suit, for which notice, had been served, is given up by the respondent/plaintiff on his own accord. In the absence of any relief, which is based on the allegations against defendant No. 3, the said averments would be wholly unnecessary.

9. "The allegations are of a serious nature inasmuch they attribute dishonesty to the defendant No. 3 and are scandalous and vexatious. It has been alleged that Deputy General Manager (Legal) stopped assigning cases due to the respondents complaint against corruption and malpractices in his department. Reference in this connection may be invited to Gobinda Mohan Das & Ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Das & Ors., (1909) Cal. L.J.10, wherein it was held that "scandalous matter should be avoided in pleadings and any proceedings before the Court may be objected to and the scandalous matter ordered to be expunged. If a statement of this character is inserted in an affidavit, it may be ordered to be taken off the file or the particular passage may be directed to be expunged. The Court may take action of its own motion or upon the application of the aggrieved party.

Allegations of dishonesty are scandalous; but they cannot be treated as such if they are relevant to the issue.

Allegation of dishonest conduct should never be made in pleadings if no relief is sought on that ground."

10. The question before the Court while consider an application to expunge certain portions of the plaint as scandalous, vexatious and unnecessary is, "Where the words complained of as set out amount to allegation necessary for the formulation of plaintiffs case, either in the way of establishing the cause of action or relevant for the purposes of decision of any of the issues. To determine whether the statement to which objection is taken supports the cause of action or is relevant to any of the issues, the test would be whether the allegation or the statement could form part of the evidence-in-chief which the plaintiff would be bound to lead for the purposes of obtaining the relief sought. It would be seen that the respondent/plaintiff for a decree of relief sought is only to prove services rendered by him, the bills raised and the nonpayment thereof. The allegations made are unnecessary and vexatious for the purposes of the suit.

11. In the instant case, as already held, the allegations made by the respondent against defendant No. 3 are not relevant to the issue or matter in controversy in suit and no relief is sought on the ground of the alleged dishonest conduct of the Deputy General Manager (Legal). I am of the view that the allegations made by the respondent/plaintiff against defendant No. 3, Deputy General Manager (Legal) are wholly unnecessary for adjudicating the matter in suit apart from being scandalous and vexatious. Learned Counsel for the respondent/caveat or sought to justify the impleadment of defendant No. 3, Deputy General Manager (Legal) on the ground that even if he was not a necessary party, he was a proper party to the suit. He further relied on Gunendra Kumar Das Vs . Dure Steamship Ltd. & Anr., : AIR1989Cal398 , to argue that till the written statement of the defendant was on record, it could not be decided whether the party was a proper party or not In the said suit, the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, was rejected holding that since no relief had been claimed against the defendant, the question of any cause of action against the defendant did not arise and, Therefore, the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, was not maintainable. It, was in that context that the Court observed that there may be various reasons for impleading as a party even though he was not a necessary party. It could be a case where a person, who is not willing to join the plaintiff is imp leaded as proforma defendant. It was a case where the Court found that "though a party is not a necessary party yet he might be a party for the sake of convenience of justice. It is in this context, it was stated that whether the defendant would be a proper party or not can be decided after the written statement comes in. However, the aforesaid authority cannot advance the respondents case at all. In the instant case, the Presence of the petitioner Deputy General. Manager (Legal) is not necessary for adjudicating the petitioners claim in the suit. No relief having been sought on the allegations made in the plaint.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also attempted to argue that the petitioners had sought to enlarge the scope of the revision petition since the grounds sought in the revision were in addition to what had been urged in the application under Order, VI, Rule 16, CPC. The submission is without merit as while execrating revisional jurisdiction, it is open to the Court to call for the records and consider the pleadings and the material on record.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is vitiated by material irregularity and deserves to be set, aside insofar as it dismisses the application of the petitioner for deletion of Deputy General Manager (Legal) from the array of defendants and dismisses the application under Order, VI, Rule 16, CPC. The Deputy General Manager (Legal) is deleted from the array of defendants. The application of the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 16, CPC, is also allowed and the scandalous allegations made in the plaint appearing in para 6 as well as para 15 of the plaint against the petitioner Deputy General Manager (Legal) are directed to be expunged off the record. The respondent shall file the amended copy of the plaint on record.

The revision petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions.

14. Revision Petitions allowed.