Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Senapati, learned counsel, for the opposite party No. 5. None appeared for the opposite party Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 despite service of notice. Earlier occasions also none  appeared for the opposite parties..

            This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2)  read with Sectiion151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for striking out the name of opposite party No. 5 from the cause title of F.A. 12/14.

            We have perused the statements made in the application. It is submitted on oath that the applicant has no grievance against the opposite party No. 5 who has been arrayed as proforma respondent No. 2 in the main appeal being F.A. 12/14. The opposite party No. 5 was neither arrayed as complainant nor respondent in the complaint case No. 34/2012. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that proforma respondent No. 2 (who has been arrayed as respondent No. 5 herein) only to jeopardize the interest of the applicant by delaying the matter.

            Ms. Senapati, appearing for the opposite party No. 5 herein also submitted that opposite party No. 5 has unnecessarily been saddled in this case with whom complainant/applicant herein has no connection. Learned counsel has further submitted that presence of opposite party No. 5 is not at all necessary for effective adjudication of the case.

Considering the statement made on oath and the submission made by Mr. Choudhury as well as Ms. Senapati, we are of the opinion that there is no harm in striking out the name of the opposite party No. 2 from the cause title of the case, which we hereby do.

            Misc Case is allowed and disposed of with a direction to strike out the name of the opposite party No. 5 from the cause title of the accompanying appeal being F.A. 12/14.