Senior Advocate, got it recorded in the order dated April 11, 2013 that let the plaint be amended but defendant No.2 be granted liberty to move an application for deletion of his name from the array of parties in the suit, a prayer which once again baffles us, because the instruction given was by a Senior Advocate, who was a party in the suit; and it is evident that either learned senior counsel wanted to put a spanner in the wheel or just did not understand what was happened. Counsel for Sh.S.C.Maheshwari, Senior Advocate pointed out that IA No.2092/2010 filed by him was pending and should be put up for consideration on the next date. So utter was the confusion created in the Court that the learned Single Judge obviously got confused. In the same breath, the order dated April 11, 2013 records that claim against defendant No.2 was given up and plaint would be amended to delete not only defendant No.2 but defendant No.4 as well from the array of parties, but simultaneously records that IA No.2092/2010 filed by defendant No.2 would be taken up for hearing on the next date. The simple thing to have been written was that in view of the plaint being amended, giving up relief against defendants No.2 and No.4 they should be deleted from the array of parties and thus IA No.2092/2010 was infructuous. On said date the suit could have been decreed against defendants No.1 and No.3 because applications seeking leave to defend filed by them were dismissed as withdrawn or for default. Order dated April 11, 2013 reads as under:-
