CHAPTER 6 ---- JOINDER OF PARTIES, ETC.

INSTITUTION OF SUIT: ORDER IV

Section 26 and Order IV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deal with how to start (institute) a suit. Order I talks
about who can be parties to a suit. It also explains when and how to add or remove parties (addition, deletion, and
substitution), when multiple people can be part of the same case (joinder), when someone is left out (non-joinder), and
when someone is wrongly included (mis-joinder), along with objections to these.

Order II contains the rules about how a suit should be structured (frame of suit), how to split or combine different claims
(splitting and joinder of claims), and when multiple causes (reasons) of action can be joined together in one case. It also
talks about raising objections if these rules are not followed.

Every suit must be started by filing a plaint (written complaint) in duplicate or in the way the CPC says. The plaint should
be filed by the plaintiff (person filing the case), or his lawyer (pleader), or an authorized person (agent or recognized
person). So generally, a court case starts only when a plaint is filed in the proper court.

PARTIES TO THE SUIT – ORDER I

Order I talks about who can be parties in a suit. It includes rules about adding, removing, or replacing parties
(joinder, mis-joinder, and non-joinder of parties) and also about joining multiple causes of action.

JOINDER OF PARTIES:

JOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS :- ORDER 1 RULE 1:-

RULE 1 :- WHO CAN FILE A CASE TOGETHER (PLAINTIFFS)

More than one person can file a case together as plaintiffs *if both these conditions are true*:

All people can be added as plaintiffs (those bringing the case) in one suit when:

(a) they claim a right to relief (legal remedy) that comes from the same act or series of acts or events,
Their *right to relief (help from court)* comes from the *same act, event, or series of events*.
➤ This means their problem or complaint is based on the same situation.
& (And)
(b) if separate cases were filed by them, a common legal or factual question would come up in each case.
If they had filed *separate cases, there would still be **some common legal or factual question* in all those
cases.
➤ This means their cases involve similar points or issues.

Illustration:

If A fights with B and C together and hurts both at the same time, B and C can jointly file a case against A for
damages (compensation), because the same event and common questions of fact/law are involved.

But, if joining all plaintiffs in one case causes confusion or delay, the court may ask them to file separately or
give another suitable direction.
✅ *Example*: If five people were injured in the same bus accident due to the driver's negligence, they can file
one case together.

JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS – ORDER I, RULE 3

*RULE 3: WHO CAN BE MADE DEFENDANTS TOGETHER*
More than one person can be added as *defendants* in one case *if both these conditions are true*:
People can be added as defendants (those against whom the case is filed) in one suit when:--

(a) the right to relief claimed against them arises from the same act or series of acts, --
The complaint (right to relief) is related to the *same act, event, or series of events*, and the complaint is
against all of them — either together or separately.

&
(b) If separate cases were filed against each of them, *Same question of law or facts would still arise.

✅ *Example*: If a group of people together forged a document, all of them can be made defendants in
one case.

caselaw:- In Govindaraju v. Alagappa, the court said that both these conditions must be met together (not
either one).

Illustration:

If B, C, D, and E each separately agreed with A to supply 100 tins of oil but failed to do so, A cannot file one
single case against all of them together because the contracts were separate – meaning the acts are different.

MIS JOINDER / NON JOINDER

NECESSARY PARTY AND PROPER PARTY

Before discussing non-joinder and mis-joinder, it is important to understand:

 Necessary Party: A person whose presence is essential to carry on and decide the case fully. Without
this person, the court cannot give a proper decision.
 Proper Party: A person whose presence is helpful for the full and complete decision of the case, but a
decision can still be made without them.

In Hardeva v. Ismail, the court laid down two tests to decide if someone is a necessary party:

1. There should be a claim for some relief against that person in the case.
2. A valid decision cannot be passed by the court without that person's presence.
Order I, Rule 8 allows that if many people have the same interest in a case, one or more of them can file the
case on behalf of all (with court's permission), as in Bhupendra Singh Babera v. Municipal Council.

MIS-JOINDER OR NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES – ORDER I, RULE 9

Order I, Rule 9 says that a case will not be rejected just because someone was wrongly added (mis-joinder) or
someone was not added (non-joinder), except in the case of a necessary party.

 Non-joinder: When a necessary party is left out.

 Mis-joinder: When someone is added who should not be there (not a necessary or proper party).

Order I, Rule 13 says that objections about mis-joinder or non-joinder should be raised as early as possible –
ideally at the time issues are framed (decided). If not raised then, the objection is treated as waived (ignored).

If a necessary party is not added, the case may be dismissed. But if it’s only a matter of convenience, the case
can go on without that party or they can be added later.

Mis-joinder Example:

If many plaintiffs are added together but their claims come from different acts and don’t raise any common
legal or factual question, it is a mis-joinder.

In B.P. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the court said that if the people not joined have the same interest as
those present, and are well represented, the case won’t be dismissed just for not joining them.

STRIKING OUT, ADDING OR SUBSTITUTING PARTIES – RULE 10

Order I, Rule 10 explains when and how the court can remove (strike out), add, or substitute parties in a suit.

Two conditions must be met to substitute the name of a plaintiff:

1. The suit was filed in the wrong person’s name by genuine mistake.
2. Adding or replacing the plaintiff is necessary to properly settle the issue in the case.

Illustration:
If C, acting as A’s agent, files a case in his own name instead of A’s by mistake, the court can replace C’s name
with A’s.

As per Rule 10(2), a person can be added when:

1. That person should have been joined as plaintiff or defendant but wasn't, or
2. The case cannot be completely decided without that person’s presence.

Such changes can be made at any stage, even during an appeal. However, a person cannot be added as a
plaintiff without his consent.

Examples:
In Md. Sabir Ansari v. Sada Nanda Mandal, the petitioner had an agreement to buy land involved in a case.
The trial court wrongly dismissed his request to be added. Since the court could not pass a full judgment
without him, he should have been added as a defendant.

In Babulal Khandelwal v. Balkishan D. Sanghvi, the Supreme Court said that in cases about managing a
deceased person’s property (administration suit), those involved in related property transactions must be
included.

In Laxmi Shankar v. Yash Ram Vasta, relying on Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh, the Supreme Court said that
one co-owner can file for eviction without including others if they do not object. Similarly, in A. Vishwanath
Pillai v. Special Tahsildar, a co-owner could recover property from a stranger alone, without joining all other
co-owners.

In the present case discussed, Defendant B claimed some necessary parties were not joined and gave a family
tree, but did not provide any real proof. Revenue records showed that only C, D, and G were legal heirs. So,
without proof of other necessary parties, the suit cannot be dismissed.

‘NECESSARY PARTY’ AND ‘PROPER PARTY’: DISTINCTION

The difference is:
 Necessary Party: Someone who must be included for the court to pass a proper and effective order. Relief is
claimed against them.
 Proper Party: Not essential, but their presence helps in reaching a complete decision.
Order I, Rule 9 clearly says a case cannot fail because of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties — except for non-joinder
of a necessary party.
Order I, Rule 10 allows courts to add or substitute parties if:
(i) the person should have been joined as plaintiff or defendant and wasn't, or
(ii) without that person, the case can't be fully decided.