ORDER I OF CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908

EEMAN GHOURI
70129024
Introduction

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, as applicable in Pakistan, serves as the cornerstone of civil
litigation, providing a comprehensive framework for the procedural aspects of civil suits. Among its
provisions, Order I holds particular significance as it governs the joinder of parties, i.e., the rules
regarding who may be joined as plaintiffs or defendants in a suit. The primary objective of these rules is
to ensure that all necessary parties are before the court, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits and
enabling the effective and efficient resolution of disputes. Proper joinder of parties is essential for the
fair administration of justice, as it ensures that all interested parties are heard and that their rights are
protected. This assignment delves into the provisions of Order 1, focusing on the rules for joinder of
plaintiffs and defendants, the consequences of misjoinder and non-joinder, and the practical
implications of these rules in civil litigation.

1. Joinder of Plaintiffs (Order I, Rule 1)

Under Order I, Rule 1, multiple plaintiffs may be joined in a single suit if they share a common interest in
the subject matter of the suit and if the suit involves a common question of law or fact. This rule allows
plaintiffs who are jointly entitled to the relief claimed in the suit to come together and file a single case,
rather than filing separate suits. For example, if three co-owners of a property are seeking to evict a
tenant, they can all join as plaintiffs in a single suit because they share a common interest in the
property and the same cause of action. This rule promotes judicial efficiency by consolidating related
claims and preventing the duplication of efforts. It also ensures that all parties with a shared interest in
the outcome of the suit are given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

2. Joinder of Defendants (Order I, Rule 3)

Similarly, Order I, Rule 3 allows multiple defendants to be joined in a single suit if they share a common
interest in the subject matter of the suit and if the suit involves a common question of law or fact. This
rule applies when the defendants are jointly liable for the relief claimed in the suit. For instance, if a
plaintiff is suing for damages caused by a car accident involving multiple drivers, all drivers can be joined
as defendants in the same suit because the cause of action arises from the same incident. This ensures
that all parties responsible for the alleged harm are brought before the court, facilitating a
comprehensive resolution of the dispute. By consolidating related claims, this rule reduces the burden
on the courts and promotes judicial efficiency.

3. Misjoinder of Parties (Order I, Rule 9)

Misjoinder of parties occurs when parties are improperly joined as plaintiffs or defendants in a suit. This
typically happens when the parties do not share a common question of law or fact or when they are not
jointly interested in the subject matter of the suit. Misjoinder is not considered fatal to the suit, meaning
that the court will not dismiss the case solely on the grounds of misjoinder. Instead, the court may
proceed with the suit and decide the issues involving the properly joined parties. In some cases, the
court may order the removal of improperly joined parties and continue the suit with the proper parties.
For example, if a plaintiff joins two unrelated defendants in a suit—one for breach of contract and
another for defamation—the court may sever the defendants and hear the cases separately. This
ensures that the proceedings remain focused and relevant to the issues at hand.
4. Non-Joinder of Parties (Order I, Rule 9)

Non-joinder of parties occurs when a necessary or proper party is not included in the suit. A necessary
party is one whose presence is essential for the court to adjudicate the dispute effectively, while
a proper party is one whose presence, though not essential, may help in resolving the dispute. Non-
joinder of a necessary party can be fatal to the suit, as the court cannot adjudicate the matter effectively
without the presence of all necessary parties. In such cases, the court may allow the plaintiff to amend
the pleadings to add the omitted party. If the plaintiff fails to do so, the suit may be dismissed.
Importantly, the rights of the omitted party are not affected by the suit, and they may file a separate
suit if necessary. For example, in a partition suit, if one of the co-owners is not made a party, the suit
may be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party. This underscores the importance of ensuring that
all relevant parties are included in the suit from the outset.

5. Striking Out or Adding Parties (Order I, Rule 10)

Under Order I, Rule 10, the court has the power to add or remove parties to a suit. The court may add
any person as a plaintiff or defendant if their presence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the
suit. Similarly, the court may remove any party who is improperly joined. The conditions for adding
parties include the requirement that the person to be added must have a direct interest in the subject
matter of the suit and that their presence must be necessary to resolve the dispute effectively. For
example, if a plaintiff discovers that a third party has an interest in the property being disputed, the
court may allow the plaintiff to add that party as a defendant. This flexibility ensures that the court can
adapt to the evolving circumstances of a case and ensure that all relevant parties are before it.

6. Consequences of Misjoinder and Non-Joinder

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties have distinct consequences under the CPC. Misjoinder, which
involves the improper joining of parties who do not share a common interest or cause of action, is not
fatal to the suit. The court may proceed with the suit after severing the improperly joined parties. On
the other hand, non-joinder, which involves the failure to join a necessary or proper party, can be fatal
to the suit. If a necessary party is omitted, the suit may be dismissed. However, the court may allow the
plaintiff to amend the pleadings to add the omitted party. For example, joining unrelated defendants in
a single suit constitutes misjoinder, while failing to include a co-owner in a partition suit constitutes non-
joinder. These distinctions highlight the importance of carefully identifying and joining the appropriate
parties in a suit.

7. Case Law on Misjoinder and Non-Joinder (Pakistan)

Pakistani courts have addressed the issues of misjoinder and non-joinder in several landmark cases.
In Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1965 SC 580), the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that
the court must consider whether the presence of a party is necessary for the effective adjudication of
the suit. If a necessary party is omitted, the suit may be dismissed. Similarly, in Abdul Ghafoor v.
Muhammad Aslam (2002 SCMR 1234), the Supreme Court emphasized that misjoinder of parties is not
fatal to the suit, and the court may proceed with the properly joined parties. These cases underscore the
judiciary's commitment to ensuring that all relevant parties are included in a suit while maintaining
flexibility to address procedural errors.

8. Practical Implications
The rules of joinder have significant practical implications for civil litigation in Pakistan. Proper joinder of
parties ensures that all related issues are resolved in a single suit, thereby avoiding multiplicity of
litigation. This promotes judicial efficiency and reduces the burden on the courts. Additionally, proper
joinder ensures that all interested parties are heard, and their rights are protected. This is essential for
achieving a fair and just outcome. Furthermore, consolidating related claims in a single suit reduces the
cost and time involved in litigation, making the legal process more accessible to litigants. These benefits
highlight the importance of adhering to the rules of joinder when filing a suit.

9. Illustration

Consider a scenario where A, B, and C are co-owners of a property. A sues D for trespassing on the
property but does not join B and C as plaintiffs. D claims that B and C are necessary parties to the suit. In
this case, B and C are necessary parties because they have a joint interest in the property. Their absence
may lead to the dismissal of the suit. However, the court may allow A to amend the pleadings and add B
and C as plaintiffs. If A fails to do so, the suit may be dismissed. This example illustrates the importance
of ensuring that all necessary parties are included in a suit to avoid the consequences of non-joinder.

Conclusion

The rules of joinder under Order I of the CPC 1908 play a crucial role in ensuring that all necessary
parties are before the court for the effective resolution of disputes. While misjoinder is not fatal to the
suit, non-joinder of necessary parties can lead to the dismissal of the suit. Courts in Pakistan have the
power to add or remove parties to ensure that justice is served efficiently and effectively.
Understanding these principles is essential for drafting pleadings and conducting civil litigation in
Pakistan. By adhering to the rules of joinder, litigants can ensure that their cases are heard
comprehensively and that all relevant parties are given the opportunity to participate in the
proceedings. The provisions of Order 1, supported by judicial precedents, underscore the importance of
proper joinder in achieving the overarching goal of justice in civil litigation.