Non-joinder and misjoinder of parties

Introduction 

When a party to the suit is unintentionally added, it is a case of misjoinder. Conversely, where a person who is necessary or proper party to a suit has not been joined as a party to the suit, it is a case of non-joinder. The concepts of nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties address issues arising from improper inclusion or exclusion of parties in a suit.  

• These principles are outlined in Order I of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC), which governs civil judicial procedures. 
• The provisions in the CPC aim to ensure that all necessary parties are included, and unnecessary parties are excluded to achieve a comprehensive and effective resolution of disputes. 

Necessary and proper parties 

• A necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable to the constitution of the suit, against whom the relief is sought and without whom no effective order can be passed.    
• A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be passed, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. 

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties: Order I Rule IX  

• Nonjoinder refers to the omission of a necessary party who should have joined in the suit but was not.  
• The CPC stipulates that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the nonjoinder of parties, provided the court can deal with the matter in controversy effectively without such parties. 
• However, the court has the discretion to order the joinder of a party at any stage of the proceedings if it deems necessary for a complete and final decision. 
• This Rule does not apply to necessary parties interpreted as non-joinder 

Striking out, Adding or Substituting Parties: Order I Rule X 

• This rule allows the court to strike out the name of any party improperly joined or to add the name of any person who ought to have been joined. This can be done at any stage of the proceedings. 
• The primary aim is to ensure that the real questions in dispute between the parties are determined without being hindered by procedural issues. 

Consequences of Nonjoinder and Misjoinder 

• Nonjoinder of Necessary Parties 
  • If a necessary party is not joined, the court may refuse to proceed with the suit until the necessary party is added.  
  • This ensures that the decree passed is effective and binding on all parties involved in the dispute. 
• Misjoinder of Parties  
  • The inclusion of unnecessary parties may lead to complications and delays.  
  • The court has the power to remove such parties to streamline the proceedings and focus on the core issues. 

Objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder of parties: Order I Rule 13  

• Any objection on the ground of nonjoinder or misjoinder should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. If not raised promptly, the objection may be deemed to have been waived. 
• If the objection as to non-joinder of necessary party has been taken by the defendant at the earliest stage and the plaintiff fails to join or declines to add the necessary party, he cannot subsequently be allowed in appeal to rectify the error by applying for amendment. 

Case laws 

• Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum (1958): 
  • The Supreme Court has laid down the principles regarding the power of the court to add the parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. 
• Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar (1969): 
  • The Supreme Court held that, if a special statute makes a person a necessary party to the proceeding and provides that non-joinder thereof will result in dismissal of the petition, the court cannot use the curative powers of Order I Rule 10 as to avoid consequences of non-joinder of such party.  
• Patasibai v. Ratanlal (1990): 
  • The Supreme Court held that a decree passed by a competent court on merits will be set aside on the ground of misdescription of the defendant. 

Conclusion 

Nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties are significant procedural issues in civil litigation. The provisions in the CPC aim to ensure that all necessary parties are included and unnecessary parties are excluded to achieve a comprehensive and effective resolution of disputes. The courts are empowered to make necessary amendments and orders to rectify such issues, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice and preventing procedural technicalities from obstructing substantive justice.