Joinder and Non-Joinder of Parties in Civil Proceedings

Civil litigation involves disputes between private parties over rights, obligations, and remedies. In many cases, more than two parties may be directly or indirectly involved in the controversy. For the effective and complete adjudication of a dispute, all such individuals must be brought on record. The principles of joinder and non-joinder ensure fair trial, prevent multiplicity of litigation, and uphold the principle of audi alteram partem – the right of every party to be heard.

However, civil suits are often challenged for improper constitution of parties, either due to the absence of necessary parties (non-joinder) or inclusion of irrelevant ones (misjoinder). The law under the CPC seeks to strike a balance by offering flexibility to the court while protecting parties from procedural technicalities that may cause injustice.

Relevant Legal Provisions under CPC

Order I of the CPC deals with “Parties to Suits” and contains key provisions relating to joinder and non-joinder:

Rule 1: Who may be joined as plaintiffs

Rule 3: Who may be joined as defendants

Rule 9: Effect of misjoinder or non-joinder

Rule 10: Power of court to add or strike parties

These provisions, read in conjuncture with the overarching aim of Order I, are to ensure that all persons whose presence is necessary for the just and complete adjudication of the matter are joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.

Joinder of Parties: Meaning and Relevance

(a) Meaning

Joinder of Parties refers to the procedural mechanism by which two or more persons are brought together as parties—plaintiffs or defendants—in a civil suit. The CPC allows permissive joinder where the cause of action is common and arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions.

(b) Joint Plaintiffs – Order I Rule 1

Two or more persons may be joined as plaintiffs where:

• The right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction, and
• There is a common question of law or fact.

For instance, multiple partners of a firm suing for breach of contract can file a joint suit.

(c) Joint Defendants – Order I Rule 3

Similarly, two or more persons may be joined as defendants when:

• The right to relief is claimed against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative; and
• The relief sought arises out of the same act or series of acts.

For example, in a property dispute involving multiple co-owners, all co-owners must be made defendants in a suit seeking a declaration of title.

Necessary and Proper Parties

The concept of joinder is closely linked to the distinction between necessary and proper parties.

(a) Necessary Parties

A necessary party is one without whom no effective decision can be rendered by the court. Their absence renders the suit liable to dismissal for non-joinder. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Benares Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1947 All 18 (FB), formulated two key tests for identifying a necessary party in a proceeding:

1. There must be a right to some relief against such a party concerning the matter in dispute; and
2. No effective decree can be passed in the party’s absence.

(b) Proper Parties

A proper party is one whose presence is not essential for the court to decide the matter, but whose participation would facilitate a complete and effective adjudication. Their inclusion avoids conflicting judgments.

(c) Illustrations

Necessary: A co-owner in a suit for partition.

Proper: A guarantor in a suit against the principal debtor, depending on the relief sought.

Non-Joinder of Parties

Non-joinder refers to the omission to join one or more necessary or proper parties to a suit.

(a) Legal Consequences

Order I Rule 9 CPC states that no suit shall be defeated merely due to non-joinder of proper parties. However, a suit is liable to dismissal if there is non-joinder of a necessary party.

(b) Order I Rule 10: Court’s Discretion

Under Order I Rule 10(2), the court may add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if it finds that such person is necessary or proper for effective adjudication.

Court’s Power to Add or Strike Out Parties

The court’s power to add or strike out parties under Order I Rule 10 is exercised:

• Suo motu, or
• On application by any party.

The court can even add a party against whom no relief is sought if it considers that their presence is necessary for complete adjudication. This flexible power prevents multiplicity of suits and ensures that parties affected by the result of the suit are appropriately heard.

Case Law

Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992)

The Supreme Court held that a lessee (Hindustan Petroleum) was neither a necessary nor proper party to a suit challenging a demolition notice issued against the plaintiff. The Court emphasised that a plaintiff cannot be forced to implead a party unless their presence is essential for deciding the matter. The lessee’s interests were separate and unrelated to the specific unauthorised construction in dispute.

Conclusion

The principles of joinder and non-joinder form the cornerstone of procedural fairness in civil litigation. By ensuring that all relevant parties are before the court, these rules facilitate comprehensive resolution of disputes, prevent multiplicity of suits, and uphold the rights of parties to a fair hearing. Indian courts, through a purposive interpretation of Order I of the CPC, have reinforced the importance of procedural flexibility to serve substantive justice. As civil disputes become increasingly complex, the proper understanding of joinder principles remains crucial for practitioners.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams