Joinder of Parties CPC

The legal framework governing the institution of suits and the joinder of parties is a critical aspect of civil procedure, ensuring that disputes are comprehensively addressed in the courts. This article discusses the provisions laid out in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly focusing on Orders I and II, which deal with parties to suits, the joinder and misjoinder of parties and related procedural intricacies.

Institution of Suit: Order IV

Section 26 and Order IV of the Code of Civil Procedure provide the foundation for the institution of suits. According to these provisions, every suit must be instituted by the presentation of a plaint, typically in duplicate, to a court of competent jurisdiction. The plaint can be filed by the plaintiff himself, by his pleader or by an agent or recognised person on his behalf. The institution of a suit marks the formal commencement of legal proceedings and the plaint is the primary document that outlines the plaintiff’s claims and the relief sought.

Order IV underscores the necessity of following prescribed procedures for filing a plaint, thereby ensuring that the court is properly apprised of the dispute and can exercise its jurisdiction accordingly. This procedural requirement is essential for the orderly administration of justice, as it allows the court to assess the merits of the case and proceed with adjudication.

Parties to the Suit: Order I

Order I of the CPC is devoted to the subject of parties to suits, encompassing the joinder, misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, as well as the joinder of causes of action. Understanding the distinction between necessary and proper parties is important for ensuring that all relevant parties are present in the suit and that the court can effectively adjudicate the matter.

Joinder of Parties

The joinder of parties refers to the inclusion of multiple plaintiffs or defendants in a single suit. Order I, Rule 1, outlines the conditions under which multiple persons may be joined as plaintiffs in a single suit:

• Right to Relief: The plaintiffs must have a right to relief in respect of or arising out of, the same act, transaction or series of acts or transactions.
• Common Question of Law or Fact: If separate suits were brought by these persons, a common question of law or fact would arise.

Illustration: An altercation occurs between A, on one hand and B and C on the other. A assaults B and C simultaneously. B and C can join as plaintiffs in one suit against A for damages, as both the above conditions are fulfilled.

However, the court may intervene if it appears that the joinder of plaintiffs may embarrass or delay the trial. In such cases, the court may put the plaintiffs to their election, order separate trials or make other orders as necessary.

Joinder of Defendants

Order I, Rule 3, similarly provides for the joinder of defendants in a suit:

• Right to Relief: The right to relief must exist against the defendants concerning the same act, transaction or series of acts or transactions.
• Common Question of Law or Fact: If separate suits were brought against these defendants, a common question of law or fact would arise.

Case Law: Govindaraju v. Alagappa (AIR 1926 Mad 911): In this case, the court held that the word “and” in Order III indicates that both conditions for joinder must be satisfied cumulatively. This means that both conditions (right to relief and common question of law or fact) must be explicitly met for the joinder of defendants.

Illustration: B, C, D and E each separately enter into agreements with A to supply 100 tins of oil. They fail to supply the goods. A cannot join B, C, D and E as defendants in one suit for damages, as these are distinct contracts and therefore constitute separate transactions.

Necessary and Proper Parties

Before delving into the concepts of non-joinder and misjoinder, it is important to understand the terms “necessary party” and “proper party”:

• Necessary Party: A necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable for the proceedings and for a final decision in the suit. Without this party, no effective decree can be passed.
• Proper Party: A proper party is one whose presence is not indispensable for an effective order, but whose presence is required for a complete and final decision of the suit.

Case Law: Hardeva v. Ismail (AIR 1970 Raj 167): The court in this case provided two tests for determining whether a party is necessary:

1. There must be a right to some relief against the party concerning the matter involved in the proceeding.
2. It should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party.

Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties (Order I, Rule 9)

Order I, Rule 9, addresses the consequences of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties:

• Misjoinder: Occurs when two or more persons are joined as plaintiffs or defendants in contravention of the rules outlined in Order I, Rules 1 and 3, respectively. In such cases, these persons are neither necessary nor proper parties.
• Non-joinder: Refers to a situation where a necessary party has not been joined in the suit. If the decree cannot be effectively enforced without the absent party, the suit may be liable to dismissal.

Key Provisions:

• A suit shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.
• The court may deal with the matter in controversy so far as the rights and interests of the parties actually before it are concerned.
• The rule does not apply to the non-joinder of a necessary party, meaning that the absence of a necessary party could lead to the dismissal of the suit.

Case Law: B.P. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985 Supp (1) SCC 432): The Supreme Court held that if affected persons are not joined as parties to a petition, the petition is not necessarily liable to dismissal if the interests of the absent parties are identical with those of the parties before the court.

Striking Out, Adding or Substituting Parties: Rule 10

Order I, Rule 10, provides the procedure for striking out, adding or substituting parties in a suit. This rule ensures that the real matter in dispute is determined by the court, even if it requires altering the parties involved.

Conditions for Substitution or Addition of Parties

1. The suit must have been filed in the name of a wrong person as a plaintiff due to a bona fide mistake.
2. The substitution or addition of a party must be necessary for determining the real matter in dispute.

Illustration: If C, acting as an agent of A, mistakenly files a suit in his own name against B, the court can substitute A as the plaintiff instead of C.

Grounds for Striking Out or Adding Parties

1. A person ought to have been joined as a plaintiff or defendant but has not been joined.
2. Without the presence of this person, the question involved in the suit cannot be completely decided.

Such amendments can be allowed at any stage of the suit or even at the appellate stage, upon terms and conditions deemed just by the court. However, no person can be added as a plaintiff without their consent.

• Case Law: Md. Sabir Ansari v. Sada Nanda Mandal (AIR 2010 Jhar 43): In this case, the court highlighted the importance of joining necessary parties to ensure that a fair and effective decree could be passed. The petitioner in this case was deemed necessary for the effective resolution of the dispute.
• Case Law: Babulal Khandelwal v. Balkishan D. Sanghvi (AIR 2009 SC 67): The Supreme Court held that in an administration suit concerning the estate of a deceased person, it may be necessary to implead persons involved in transactions related to the estate for a comprehensive decision.
• Case Law: Laxmi Shankar v. Yash Ram Vasta (AIR 1993 SC 1587): The Supreme Court, relying on earlier judgments, held that one co-owner could maintain an eviction petition in the absence of other co-owners if those co-owners did not object.

Practical Considerations and Application

The joinder of parties and the related procedural rules are fundamental to the efficient functioning of the civil justice system. These provisions ensure that all relevant parties are brought before the court and that the dispute is resolved comprehensively. However, the application of these rules requires careful consideration of the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

In practice, the determination of whether a party is necessary or proper can significantly impact the outcome of a suit. Courts must balance the need for efficiency with the principles of justice, ensuring that all interested parties have the opportunity to be heard.

Moreover, the procedural mechanisms for striking out, adding or substituting parties provide flexibility in the legal process, allowing for the correction of bona fide mistakes and the inclusion of relevant parties as the case progresses.

Conclusion

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly Orders I and II, play an important role in shaping the procedural landscape of civil litigation. The rules governing the joinder of parties, misjoinder and non-joinder ensure that disputes are adjudicated efficiently and fairly. By providing mechanisms for the inclusion or exclusion of parties, these provisions help to streamline the litigation process and prevent unnecessary delays or complications.

Ultimately, the joinder of parties and related procedural rules are designed to facilitate the just resolution of disputes, ensuring that all relevant parties are before the court and that the matter in controversy is comprehensively addressed. Courts must apply these rules judiciously, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case to achieve a fair and equitable outcome.