ADVERTISEMENTS:

Legal Provisions of Order

I of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.),
India Parties to Suits
ArticlesharedbySantanuDey

Allpersonsmaybejoinedinonesuitasplaintiffswhere(a)anyright
toreliefinrespectof,orarisingoutof,thesameact,ortransactionor
seriesofactsortransactionsisallegedtoexistinsuchpersons
whetherjointly,severallyorinthealternativeand(b)ifsuchpersons
broughtseparatesuits,anycommonquestionoflaworfactwould
arise,(OrderI,Rule1).

ThuswhereApublishesaseriesofbooksunderthetitleofThe
OxfordandCambridgePublicationssoastoinducethebeliefthatthe
booksarethepublicationsoftheOxfordandCambridgeUniversities,
thetwouniversitiesmayjoinasplaintiffsinonesuittorestrainAfrom
usingthetitlebecausethepublicationandthebeliefarecommon
questionsoffactarisingoutofthesameseriesoftransactions.

law

ImageSource:levarilaw.com

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Butseveralpersonscannotfileajointsuitfordamagesfortheir
wrongfuldetentioninjailaftertheexpiryoftheirtermofimprisonment.
Allpersonshavingacommoncauseofactionareentitledtojoinas
plaintiff.

Therighttobeimpleadedaspartyandtocontesttheproceedingmust
beexpresslyconferredbythestatutewithoutwhichapartywhoisnot
necessaryfortheproceedingscannotclaimtobeimpleaded.

Separatetrials:
Whereitappearstothecourtthatanyjoinderofplaintiffsmay
embarrassordelaythetrialofthesuit,thecourtmayputtheplaintiffs
totheirelectionororderseparatetrialsormakesuchotherorderas
maybeexpedient.(OrderI,Rule2).

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Joinderofdefendants:

Allpersonsmaybejoinedinonesuitasdefendantswhere(a)any
righttoreliefinrespectof,orarisingoutof,thesameactor
transactionorseriesofactsortransactions,isallegedtoexistagainst
suchpersons,whetherjointly,severally,orinthealternativeand(b)if
separatesuitswerebroughtagainstsuchpersons,anycommon
questionoflaworfactwouldarise(OrderI,Rule3).

ThuswhereAreceivedinjurieswhileridinginanomnibusbelongingto
BthroughacollisionbetweenthatomnibusandacartbelongingtoC,
AmayjoinBandCasdefendantinonesuitfordamagesforpersonal
injurycausedbytheirnegligencebecausetheinjurytotheplaintiff
arosefromthesametransactionorseriesoftransactionsandthe
caseinvolvescommonquestionoffact.

Whereitappearstothecourtthatanyjoinderofdefendantsmay
embarrassordelaythetrialofthesuit,thecourtmayorderseparate
trialsormakesuchotherorderasmaybeexpedientintheinterestsof
justice.(OrderI,Rule3A).

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Wheretheplaintiffisindoubtastothepersonfromwhomheis
entitledtoobtainredress,hemayjointwoormoredefendants.(Order
I,Rule7).

Nonjoinderofparties:

Whereapersonwhoisanecessarypartytoasuithasnotbeenjoined
asapartytothesuititisacaseofnonjoinder.Asuitshouldnotbe
dismissedonthegroundofnonjoinder.Adistinctionhastobedrawn
betweenthenonjoinderofapersonwhooughttohavebeenjoined
asapartyandthenonjoinderofapersonwhosejoinderisonlya
matterofconvenienceorexpediency.

Ifthedecreecannotbeeffectivewithouttheabsentparties,thesuitis
liabletobedismissed.Incaseswherethejoinderofapersonasa
partyisonlyamatterofconvenience,theabsentpartymaybeadded
orthesuitmaybetriedwithouthim.
Nonjoinderofnoconsequenceeffect:

Inasuitfordeclarationoftitleandejectmentoftenantsunder
compromisedecree,onecotenantwasnotpartyinthesuit.Hewas
notresidinginpremisesinquestionandwasalsonotclaimingany
interestundercompromisedecree.Suitisnotbadfornonjoinderof
necessarypartyasomissiontoimpleadhimisofnoconsequence.

Misjoinder:

Wheretherearemoreplaintiffsthanoneandtheyarejoinedtogether
inonesuit,buttherighttoreliefallegedtoexistineachplaintiffdoes
notariseoutofthesameactortransactionandifseparatesuitswere
broughtnocommonquestionoflaworfactwouldarise,itisacaseof
misjoinderofplaintiffs.

Misjoinderofdefendantstakesplacewhentwoormorepersonsare
joinedasdefendantsinonesuit,buttherighttoreliefallegedtoexist
againstsuchofthemdoesnotarisefromthesameactortransaction
andthereisnocommonquestionoflawoffact.

Similarly,amisjoinderofplaintiffsandcausesofactiontakesplace
whereinasuittherearetwoormoreplaintiffsandtwoormorecauses
ofactionbuttheplaintiffsarenotjointlyinterestedinallthecausesof
action.

Amisjoinderofdefendantsandcausesofactiontakesplacewherein
asuittherearetwoormoredefendantsandtwoormorecausesof
action,butdifferentcausesofactionhavebeenjoinedagainst
differentdefendantsseparately.

OrderI,Rule13providesthatallobjectionsonthegroundofnon
joinderormisjoinderofpartiesshallbetakenattheearliestpossible
opportunityand,inallcaseswhereissuesaresettled,atorbefore
suchsettlement,unlessthegroundofobjectionhassubsequently
arisen,andanysuchobjectionnotsotakenshallbedeemedtohave
beenwaived.

Multifariousness:

Misjoinderofpartiesandcausesofactioninasuitistechnicallycalled
multifariousness.Whereinasuittherearetwoormoredefendants
andcausesofaction,thesuitwillbebadformisjoinderofdefendants
andcausesofaction,ifdifferentcausesofactionarejoinedagainst
differentdefendantsseparately.
Thejoinderofsuchseparatecausesofactionandseparate
defendantsmakesthesuitbadformultifariousness.Theobjectionon
thegroundofmultifariousnessshouldbetakenattheearliest
opportunityandanyobjectionnotsotakenshallbedeemedtohave
beenwaived.

Effectofnonjoinderormisjoinderofpartiesand
multifariousness:

Asstatedabove,nonjoinderormisjoinderofpartiesisnotfataltothe
suit.OrderI,Rule9,clearlylaysdownthatnosuitshallbedefeated
byreasonofthemisjoinderornonjoinderofparties,andthecourt
mayineverysuitdealwiththemattersincontroversysofaras
regardstherightsandinterestsofthepartiesactuallybeforeit.

Theonlyexceptionprovidedtothisruleisfurnishedbythegeneral
principlethatacourtwillrefrainfrompassingadecreewhichwouldbe
ineffectiveandinfructuous.Theinabilityofthecourttopassan
effectivedecree,whenallthepartiesinterestedinthesubjectmatter
ofthesuitarenotbeforeit,maybedueeithertothenatureofthe
actionorthenatureoftheinterestthattheperson,whoisnotmadea
partytotheaction,hasinthesubjectmatterofthesuit.

Intheformerclassofcasescomesuitsforpartitionordissolutionof
partnershipandrenditionofaccounts,whileinthelatterclasscome
suitswithrespecttosomepropertybelongingtoajointHindufamily
whenallthecoparcenersarenotmadeparties.Buttheseruleshave
noapplicationwheretheinterestofthepersonnotimpleadedasa
partyinthesuitisascertainedorascertainable.

Necessarypartyinsuitfordeclarationoftitleandinjunction:

Whereplaintiffhadobtainedpropertyfromhistransferordefendant
whohadobtainedpropertyfromoriginalownerbyunregistered
instrument.Held,thatprincipleofCaveatEmptorandMaximnomo
datquidnonhabetwereapplicable.Assuch,originalownerwas
necessaryandproperpartytosuit.

Tosumup,inthecaseofnonjoinderofnecessarypartiesthecourt
cannotpassaneffectivedecreeintheirabsence.Insuchacasethe
suitcannotproceedandisliabletobedismissediftheplaintiffon
beingprovidedwithanopportunitytoamendtheplaintiffrefusestodo
so.Butinthecaseofnonjoinderofproperpartiesthenonjoinderis
notfatal.
Thecourtcanaddtheabsentpartyortrythesuitwithouthim.Where
nothingissoughtagainstaparticularparty,nonjoinderofsuchparty
hasnoeffect.ThegranteeoflandfromMandiCommitteesought
possessionoflandandclaimednothingagainstGovernmentorMandi
Committee.NonjoinderofGovernmentorMandiCommitteehasno
effectunderOrderI,Rule13.

Onceamultifarioussuitisallowedtoproceedtotrialandresultsina
decreewithoutrecoursetorule9ofOrderI,thepleaof
multifariousnessshouldbedeemedtobewaived.Section99provides
thatnodecreeshallbereversedorsubstantiallyvaried,norshallany
caseberemandedinappealonaccountofanymisjoinderofpartiesor
causesofationoranyerror,defectorirregularityinanyproceedings
inthesuit,notaffectingthemeritsofthecaseorthejurisdictionofthe
court.

Wherenecessarypartyrefusestojoinasplaintiffs:

Ifanypersonwhooughttohavebeenjoinedasplaintiffdoesnot
consenttojoinasplaintiff,hemaybemadeadefendantinthesuit.

Inasuitforinjunctionrestraininginterferencewithpossession,the
applicantsoughtitsimpleadmentinthesuitasdefendant,principally,
onthegroundthatithadenteredintoagreementofsalewiththe
defendantoppositepartythroughherattorneyinrespectofapartof
thelandinsuit.Thecourtheldthattheagreementtosaledoesnot
createinterestorchargeonimmovablepropertyandassuchrefusal
toimpleadthepartybythecourtbelowwasproper.

Suitagainstadeadperson:

Whereasuitisbroughtagainstapersonwhoisfoundtohavedied
beforeitsinstitution,theplaintcannotbeamendedbybringinghis
legalrepresentativeontherecord,thoughthesuitmayhavebeen
filedinignoranceofhisdeath,forasuitagainstadeadpersonisa
nullity.

Butifthesuitisagainstseveraldefendantsoneofwhomisfoundto
havediedbeforetheinstitution,thesuitwillnotbedismissedandwill
beproceededagainsttheotherdefendantsandthelegal
representativeofthedefendantcanbejoinedifhewasanecessary
party.

Suitfiledagainstajuristicpersonnotinexistence:
Asuitfiledagainstajuristicpersonwhichwasnotinexistencewhen
thesuitwasfiledisincompetent.

Suitinthenameofwrongplaintiff:

(1)Whereasuithasbeeninstitutedinthenameofthewrongperson
asplaintifforwhereitisdoubtfulwhetherithasbeeninstitutedinthe
nameoftherightplaintiff,thecourtmayatanystageofthesuit,if
satisfiedthatthesuithasbeeninstitutedthroughabonafidemistake,
andthatitisnecessaryforthedeterminationoftherealmatterin
disputesotodo,orderanyotherpersontobesubstitutedoraddedas
plaintiffuponsuchtermsasthecourtthinksjust.

(2)Thecourtmayatanystageoftheproceedingsstrikeoutthename
ofanypartyimproperlyjoined,oraddthenameofanypersonwho
oughttohavebeenjoined,whetherasplaintiffordefendant,orwhose
presencebeforethecourtmaybenecessarytoenableittoadjudicate
uponandsettleallthequestionsinvolvedinthesuit.

(3)Nopersonshallbeaddedasplaintiffsuingwithoutanextfriendor
asthenextfriendofaplaintiffunderdisabilitywithouthisconsent.

(4)Whereadefendantisadded,theplaintshallbeamended,and
amendedcopiesofthesummonsandoftheplaintshallbeservedon
thenewdefendant.

(5)Theproceedingsasagainstanypersonaddedasdefendantshall
bedeemedtohavebegunonlyontheserviceofthesummons.(Order
I,Rule10).

AdditionofParty:

OrderI,Rule10involvesbothanarrowerscopeandwiderscope,and
whileanecessaryparty,thatisapartywithoutwhomalegaldecree
cannotbepassedinasuit,haseveryrighttobeincluded,evena
properpartycanpressforsuchrelief.

Thecourtmustprimarilyconsiderwhetherthepresenceofthatparty
wouldadvancethetotalandsatisfactoryadjudicationofthelisofthe
subjectmatterofcontroversy.Ifthepresenceofsuchapartywouldbe
essentialorhighlydesirableintheinterestofjustice,theCourthasa
widediscretiontoimpleadsuchapartyalso.

Inasuitfordissolutionofpartnershipandaccountsinwhichone
partneristheheadofajointHindufamily,thesonofsuchapartneris
aproperpartyandcanbeimpleadedtosafeguardtheinterestofthe
familythoughhecannotgetanyrightadjudicatedbyadecreeinthe
suitintersebetweenhimselfandhisfather.

InawritpetitionchallengingselectionpolicyadoptedbyCentralGovt,
withregardtoallotmentoffuellinkageforIndependentPowerProjects
(IPP)tostate,theapplicantswhohavebeenselectedandinwhose
favourallotmentwasmadebyCentralgovernmentarenecessary
parties.Asnoorderadverselyaffectingsuchapplicantscanbe
passedanditisnotpossibletogranteffectivereliefwithouttheir
impleadment.

RuleofpresentordirectinterestrelaxationJudicialDiscretion:

Thequestionofadditionofpartiesunderrule10ofOrderI,C.P.C.is
generallynotoneofinitialjurisdictionofthecourtbutofajudicial
discretionwhichhastobeexercisedinviewofallthefactsand
circumstancesofaparticularcase.

Wherethesubjectmatteroflitigationisadeclarationasregards
statusoralegalcharacter,theruleofpresentordirectinterestmaybe
relaxedinasuitablecasewherethecourtisoftheopinionthatby
addingapartyitwouldbeinabetterpositioneffectuallyand
completelytoadjudicateuponthecontroversy.

Butthecourtshouldbeverycircumspectindealingwiththe
applicationofathirdpartyseekingleavetobecomepartyinthesuit,
whentheplaintiffisopposedtoit.Impleadmentshouldnotnormallybe
allowedwhereimpleadmentofthirdpartyinvolvesdenovotrial.

GroundsforAdditionofParties:

UnderOrderI,Rule10(2)thecourtisempoweredtoaddapartyon
eitherofthetwogrounds,viz.,(1)thatheshouldhavebeenjoined
whenthesuitwasoriginallyinstitutedbutwasnotjoinedthrough
inadvertenceorotherwise(2)thatthoughhemightnothavebeena
necessaryorproperpartyatthetimeofinstitutionofthesuit,his
presencehassincebecomenecessarytoenablethecourtto
effectuallyandcompletelyadjudicateandsettleallthequestions
involvedinthesuit.

TheprovisionsofOrderI,Rule10(2),C.P.C.ismeanttogivetoevery
personanopportunityofbeingheardwhoserightsbeaffectedbythe
ultimatedecree.Italsoprovidesforstrikingoutthenamesofpersons
whoseinterestorrightsmaynotbeaffected.
Aperusalofsubrule(2)ofrule10ofOrderImakesitclearthatit
requiresthecourttoaddapartynotonlyasamatterofcoursebuton
thegivenconditionswherethepresenceofthepersonsoughttobe
addedisnecessaryinordertoenablethecourteffectuallyand
completelytoadjudicateuponandsettleallthequestionsinvolvedin
thesuit.

Thefindingisaconditionprecedentbyacourtforadditionofaparty.
Theseconditionsmentionedinsubrule(2)ofrule10ofOrderIapply
withequalforcewhethertheapplicationisonbehalfoftheplaintiffor
anyotherpersonorevenbyanoutsiderwithoutanyexception.

Differencebetweenanecessarypartyandproperparty:

Anecessarypartyisonewithoutwhomnoordercanbemade
effectively.Aproperpartyisoneinwhoseabsenceaneffectiveorder
canbemadebutwhosepresenceisnecessaryforacompleteand
finaldecisiononthequestioninvolvedintheproceeding.

Thelandlordisaproperpartytothesuitforperpetualinjunction
againsttheMunicipalCorporationfordemolitionofdemisedbuilding
forreasonofunauthorisedconstructionthoughreliefissoughtfor
againsttheMunicipalCorporationandnotagainsthim.

Thedemolitionwouldmateriallyaffecttheright,titleandinterestofthe
landlordeveniftheunauthorisedconstructionwasmadewithor
withouttheconsentoflandlordorthelessor.

ProperParty:

Thebeneficiary,i.e.,localauthorityorcompanyorstatutoryauthority,
etc.forwhosebenefitlandisacquiredisapersoninterestedand
propertyinmatterofdeterminationofcompensation.Ifitisnot
impleadedaspartyitisentitledtoappealorwritpetitiontoassailthe
legalityorcorrectnessofenhancedofaward.

Intheabsenceofthebeneficiarywhohastobearthehigher
compensation,nocompleteandeffectualdeterminationofbinding,
justandpropercompensationtoacquiredlandcanbemade.

Suitwasfiledaskinginjunctionrestrainingdefendentsfrom
possessionofplaintpropertyonthebasisofregisteredwillexecuted
bymotheroftheplaintiff.Purchaserofpropertypendingsuitcannotbe
saidtobeeithernecessaryorproperpartyandtheycannotbe
impleadedaspartiestosuit.
Respondentinsuitforspecificperformanceofcontractenteredinto
compromiseandgotdeletedhisnamefromarraignmentofparties.
Sonsofrespondentarenotnecessaryandproperproperty.Theirplea
isnottenabletotheeffectthatquestionofgenuinenessofdeedof
relinquishmentsignedbyfathercannotbedecidedintheirabsence.
Thereasonisthatthesuitisoneforspecificperformanceandnotfor
title.

Apersonmaybenecessaryasdefendanttothesuitwhen(1)thereis
arighttosomereliefagainsthiminrespectofthedisputeinvolvedin
thesuit:and(2)hispresenceisnecessarytoenablethecourt
effectuallyandcompletelytoadjudicateuponandsettleallthe
questionsinvolvedinthesuit.

Thuswhereapersonwhoisnotpartytoargumenttosaleand
acquiredthestatusasacoownerwiththedefendantduringthe
pendencyofsuitbyvirtueofCourt,isnotanecessarypartyinasuit
forspecificperformance.Notbeingpartytotheagreementofsalethe
suitforspecificperformancecanbedecidedwithoutherpresence.

InBankstherateofinterestisdecidedonthebasisofcircularsissued
bytheReserveBankofIndia.Inacasewherequestioninvolved
relatedtochargeofaninterestonloansgrantedbyBank,application
toimpleadReserveBankofIndiaasnecessarypartyrespondentwas
allowed.

OrderI,Rule10(2),C.P.C.givesaclueastowhoshouldbedeemed
tobeanecessaryparty.Thetermallthequestionsinvolvedinthe
suitoccurringinOrderI,Rule10(2),C.P.C.meansquestionsas
betweenthepartiestothelitigation,thatistosay,questionswith
regardtotherightsetupandthereliefclaimedononesideand
deniedorwithheldontheotherhandandnotthequestionwhichmay
arisebetweencoplaintiffandcodefendantinterseortoquestions
betweenthepartytothesuitandathirdparty.

StateGovernmentisanecessarypartyinasuitchallengingthe
declarationofsurpluslandunderceilinglawsonthegroundthatthe
orderpassedbyauthoritiesisillegal.

Butsuitforperpetualinjunctionfiledonbehalfofdeadpersonsbyco
plaintiffwasdismissedandbecamefinal.Thereaftersubstitution
cannotbeallowed.

SuitwasfiledbyMalenkaraChurchfordeclarationthatitwas
episcopalandnotunionofchurches.Itmeantthatitgivesthe
Catholicos/MalenkareMetropolitan/theMetropolitanoftheDiocese
anytitletoorcontroloverthepropertiesheldbytheParishChurches.
IntheabsenceoftheParishChurchesnodeclarationaffectingthem
canbegranted.

Itissettledprincipleoflawthatthebenamidarsufficientlyrepresents
therealownerandthedecisionintheproceedingbroughtbyor
againstthebenamidarwillbindtherealowner,eventhoughhemay
nothavebeenmadeaparty.

Itiswellsettledthatinaproceedingbyoragainstthebenamidarthe
personbeneficiallyentitledisfullyaffectedbytherulesofresjudicata.
Itisopentothebeneficialownertoapplytobejoinedinanaction,but
whetherheisorisnotmadeaparty,aproceedingbyoragainstthe
benamidarwhoishisrepresentativeinitsultimateresult,isfully
bindingonhim.

SuoMotuAdditionofPartiesbytheCourt:

ThecourtcanmakesuchimpleadmentonitsownunderOrderI,Rule
10,C.P.C.,ifitthinksnecessaryforthepurposesofadjudicatingthe
controversiesbetweentheparties.

AdditionofPartiesandAbatementProcedureondeath,marriage
andinsolvencyofParties:

Aslongasoneoftheheirshasbeenbroughtonrecordwho
substantiallyrepresentedtheestateofthedeceasedplaintiff,the
applicationcouldnotbedismissedonthegroundthatthesuithas
abatedoritcouldnotproceed.Ifthedaughterofthedeceasedhad
notbeenbroughtonrecord,theissuewithregardtoherbeinga
necessaryparty,shecanbeaddedunderOrderI,Rule10,C.P.C.The
questionofabatementintheappealcouldnotarise.

Inasuitforrecoveryofmoneydeclarationofrightsofplaintiffsand
liabilitiesofdefendentsbecamefinalbypreliminarydecree.Thereafter
oneofthedefendantsdied.Legalrepresentativesofdeceasedcanbe
substitutedunderSection151orOrderI,Rule10,CPC.

Whereinasuitforinjunctionagainstthedefendants,oneofthe
defendantsdiedandtheplaintiffmovednosubstitutionapplicationand
forsettingasidetheabatementwithintimeprescribedbylawandthe
muchdelayedapplicationfiledunderOrderXXII,Rule4for
substitutionalongwithanapplicationforcondonationofdelayand
settingasidetheabatementwererejected,thecourtcouldnotdirect
thebringingofheirsontherecordunderOrderI,Rule10andRule10
willnotapplytosuchacase.TheviewtakeninKhalilAhmadv.
AdditionalDistrictJudge,Gorakhpur,tothecontrarywasheldtobe
erroneous.

InMt.BibiRehmaniKhatoonv.HarkooGope,theSupremeCourt
examinedtheschemeofOrderXXIIoftheCodeofCivilProcedure
andafterhavingexaminedthescheme,itheld:

Theconceptofabatementisknowntocivillaw.Ifapartytoa
proceeding,eitherinthetrialcourtorinappealorrevisiondiesand
therighttosuesurvivesoraclaimhastobeanswered,theheirsand
legalrepresentativesofthedeceasedpartywouldhavetobe
substitutedandfailuretodosowouldresultinabatementof
proceedings.Now,ifthepartytoasuitdiesandtheabatementtakes
place,thasuitwouldabate.

OrderXXIIoftheCodeofCivilProcedurelaysdownaprocedure
wholesomeformovinganapplicationtobringonrecordtheheirsof
thedeceasedlitigant.Iftheapplicationisnotfiledwithion90days,the
suitwillstandabatedandtheeffectofitsabatementunderthe
provisionsofanyofthepreviousrulesofOrderXXIIisdealtwithin
rule9,andsubrule(2)thereofprovidestheremedybytheperson
aggrievedbytheabatement.

Underrule9,theplaintifforthepersonclaimingtobethelegal
representativeofthedeceasedplaintiffcanapplyforsettingasidethe
abatementandifitisprovedthathewaspreventedbyanysufficient
causefromcontinuingthesuit,thecourtcansetasidetheabatement
ordismissalofthesuitonsuchtermsastocosts.

Onsettingasidetheabatement,lifeintothesuitisinfusedanditwill
proceedfromthestageatwhichthedeathhadtakenplace.Itmaybe
statedthatalegalrepresentativecancontinuethesuitonlyonthe
causeofactionsueduponandcannotsetupaneworindividualright.

Hethuscannottakeorsetupapleaopentohimpersonally.Hisplea
wouldbesuchasisappropriatetohischaracteraslegal
representative.Hewillnotbeentitledtotakeapleacontrarytothe
casetakenbythedeceased.

DifferenceinAdditionofPartiesunderOrder1,Rule10and
OrderXXII,Rules4and9:

OrderXXIIoftheCodeofCivilProcedurespecificallylaysdownthe
proceduretobefollowedondeath,marriageandinsolvencyof
parties.OrderI,Rule10,C.P.C.conferspoweronacourttoadda
personasapartyatanystageoftheproceedinguponorwithoutthe
applicationofeitherparty,ifintheopinionofthecourttheadditionof
suchapersonappearstobejustinordertoenableiteffectivelyand
completelytoadjudicateuponandsettleallthequestionsinvolvedin
thesuit.

ThereisavitaldifferencebetweenOrderI,Rule10andOrderXXII,
Rules4and9oftheCode.OrderI,Rule10doesnotdealwith
substitutionofheirsandlegalrepresentativesofadeceased.It
conferspoweronthecourttoimpleadoraddapersonaspartyorto
strikedownapersonimproperlyjoined,iftheCourtfindsitnecessary
fordeterminationoftherealmatterindispute.

OrderXXII,Rule4confersrightonaplaintifftobringonrecordthe
heirsandlegalrepresentativesofadeceased.Iftherighttosuedoes
notsurvive,thesuitshallcometoanendandshallabate.

TherightconferredbyOrderI,Rule10,C.P.C.enablesthecourtto
addapersonasaparty.OrderI,Rule10hasaspecificandlimited
purposewhichisdifferentfromonecontemplatedbyrules4and9of
OrderXXIIoftheCode.

Thetwoprovisionsdealwithdifferenteventualitiesandcontingencies.
Itisonethingtofileanapplicationtoimpleadcertainpersonsasparty
tothesuitinplaceofadeceasedpartyunderOrderXXII,Rule4
C.P.C.anditisentirelydifferenttoapplyunderOrderI,Rule10,
C.P.C.toaddanewparty.

Themaindifferenceisthattherightsofthepartiesinonecasewould
bealtogetherdifferentthanofthepartyintheothercase.Alegal
representativehasthesamestatusandrightsasthatofthedeceased,
whereastherightsandobligationsofapersonimpleadedunderOrder
I,Rule10,C.P.C.wouldnotbecircumscribed,andhewouldbe
entitledtotakeanypleawhichheisadvisedtodo.

InStateTradingCorporationofIndiaLtd.v.K.V.Vaidyalingam,this
aspectofthematterhasbeenconsideredandthedifferencebetween
therightsoftwotypesofpersonsbroughtonrecordhasbeen
highlighted.

InGobardhanDasv.DarshanSingh,alearnedJudgehasreferredto
thepurposeofOrderI,Rule10(2)oftheCodeandlaiddownthat
additionofapartyundertheaforesaidprovisioncanbedoneonlyina
pendingsuitandnotinonewherethedefendantisdead.

InSisirKumarTarafdarv.MandindraKumarBiswas,aDivisionBench
oftheCalcuttaHighCourtheldthatthefirstpartofsubrule(2)gives
thecourtthepowertostrikeoutthenameofanypartyimproperly
joined,andthesecondfortheadditionofaparty.

ThelearnedJudgespointedoutthesignificanceofthewordjoined
andaddedandomissionofthewordsubstitutedinthewordingof
subrule(2).TheomissiontousethewordsubstituteinOrderI,Rule
10(2),intheopinionofthelearnedjudges,wasdeliberate.

Theyheldthatthecaseofmeresubstitutionisdistinctfromaddition
andisnotcoveredbysubrule(2)ofrule10ofOrderIoftheCode.
TheFullBenchoftheAllahabadHighCourtinSmt.MahendraKaurv.
HafijKhalilandothers,agreedwiththatviewandheldthatsubrule(2)
ofrule10ofOrderIenablestheCourttojoinapersonasapartywho
oughttohavebeenjoined.

Thisprovisionwasnotmeanttobeappliedtoacaseofsubstitutionof
onepartyonthedeathofhispredecessorininterest.Therewouldbe
nopowerinacourtunderOrderI,Rule10,C.P.C.tosubstitutethe
heirsandlegalrepresentativesofthedeceaseddefendant.Inthe
caseofabatementtakingplace,whatisnecessaryfurtherisitssetting
aside.UnderOrderI,Rule10,C.P.C.,thecourtmayaddorsubtracta
party.Itcannotsetasidetheabatementandsubstitutetheheirsofthe
deceased.

Whatwillfollowfromtheaboveprincipleisthatsincethereisa
specificprovisiondealingwiththesubstitution,abatementandsetting
asidetheabatementinOrderXXII,Rule4thatwouldexcludethe
generalprovisionofadditionofpartymadeinOrderI,Rule10(2)of
theCodeofCivilProcedure.

InBhagwanSwarupv.MoolChand,theSupremeCourtwascalled
upontoconsiderthescopeofOrderI,Rule10andOrderXXII,Rule4
oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.Inthatcasetheheirsofthedeceased
respondentNo.1whohadnotbeenimpleadedwithintimebythe
appellantoftheappealbeforetheSupremeCourt,hadappliedunder
OrderI,Rule10forbeingbroughtontherecord.

TheSupremeCourtheldthatastheappellanthadnotmovedtheHigh
CourtwithintimebyfilinganapplicationunderOrderXXII,Rule4,the
limitationfortakingactionunderthesaidprovisionhavingsince
expired,theconsequencecouldnotbecircumventedbyresorttothe
provisionofOrderI,Rule10,C.P.C.

Solongasoneoftheheirshasbeenbroughtonrecordwho
substantiallyrepresentedestateofthedeceasedplaintiff,the
applicationcouldnotbedismissedonthegroundthatthesuithas
abatedoritcouldnotproceed.

Ifapersonisnotanecessarypartytothelitigationorhispresenceis
notnecessarytoadjudicationthecaseeffectuallyandcompletely,he
shallnotbeaddedasdefendantwithouttheconsentoftheplaintiff.
Thegroundthatheislikelytosufferaloss,ifheisnotmadea
defendantisnogroundtoimpaledhimassuch.

AdditionofPartiesinAppeal:

Anappealbeingthecontinuationofthesuit,apersonmaybeadded
asapartytoit,evenatthestageoftheappeal,providedhisaddition
isnecessaryinordertoenablethecourttoeffectivelyandcompletely
adjudicateuponandsettleallthequestionsinvolvedinthesuit.

Thequestionsinvolvedinthesuitmeanandincludeonlythose
questionsthatareinvolvedinthesuitbetweenthepartiestoit,who
arealreadyontherecordandcannotincludethosequestionsthat
maysubsequentlyarisebetweenthemandthepersonwhoseeksto
beimpleadedasapartytothesuit.

Inthepresentcase,theapplicantinasuitbroughtbyhimobtaineda
consentdecreeagainsttherespondents,apartnershipfirmandits
partners.Thedecreewastotheeffectthatallthetimberinacertain
forestdivisionwashisexclusivepropertyandthattherespondents
couldnottransferthesaidpropertytoanypersonnorcouldthey
removethesame.

Theonlydisputeinvolvedbetweenthepartiestotheappealwasasto
whetherornottheconsentdecreewasobtainedthroughfraudor
collusion,whetherornotitwasbindingonthefirmwhenallits
partnerswerenotimpleadedaspartiestothesuit,andwhetherornot
thetransferinfavouroftheappellantwasinviolationofthetermsof
thepartnershipdeed.ItwasheldthattheStatecannotbeaddedasa
partytotheappealtoraisethenewquestionsastowhetherornotthe
leaseperiodhadexpired,orwhetherornottherespondentspartners
hadanyrighttotransfertotheappellanttheirrightsunderthelease,
muchlesswhennoneofthepartieshadquestionedtheStates
paramounttitleintheforest.TheStatenotbeingapartytothesuit
cannotobviouslybeboundbythedecreespassedthereinandwas
fullycompetenttotakeallstepsunderlawthatitmightdeem
necessarytoprotectitsinterest.

ContestingPartiessuitnecessaryPartiesinAppeal:
Contestingpartiestosuitarenecessarypartiesinappeal.Norelief
canbegrantedinappealwherethecontestingoriginaldefendants
werenotimpleadedinappealasthereisabsenceofnecessary
parties.

InterventioninAppeal:

Interventioninappealagainstthedismissalofwritpetitionisnot
maintainableattheinstanceofthosepersonswithouttherebeingany
decisionofHighCourtontheirclaim.

InterventioninAppeal:

SupremeCourtrefusedtointerfereinappealagainsttheorder
rejectingimpalementaspartybydeveloperinasuitbybuilderfor
specificperformanceofagreementtodeveloplandagainstland
owner.

Thebuilderhadenteredintoseparateagreementwithdeveloper.The
issuesinvolvedastoassignmentofrightscanbethrashedoutina
properlyconstitutedsuitandcannotbedecidedinanappealagainst
interlocutoryorder.Decisioninappealwouldprejudicedeveloperifhe
filesseparatesuit.

ImpalementatbelatedStageinAppealnotallowable:

PersonswhowerenotevenpartiesbeforeHighCourtcannotbe
allowedtobeimpleadedaspartiesinappealbeforeSupremeCourt
onthegroundofilliteracyonsuchbelatedapplicationfor
impleadment.

MahendraSinghv.DeviGir:

Thequestionwhetherapartyshouldbeimpleadedornot,hastobe
decidedwithreferencetotheprovisionsofOrderI,Rule10subrule
(2),C.P.C.whichgivespowertothecourttoaddparties,whose
presencebeforethecourtmaybenecessaryinordertoenablethe
courteffectuallyandcompletelytoadjudicateuponandsettleallthe
questionsinvolvedinthesuit.

Thepowersgivenundersubrule(2)ofRule10ofOrderI,arewide
enoughtoenablethecourttoimpleadpersonsasdefendantsinasuit,
whomaynotbe,inthestrictsense,necessaryforeffectuallyand
completelyadjudicatinguponandsettlingallquestionsinvolvedinthe
suit.
Wherethesuitisforinjunctiontorestrainthedefendantsfrom
interferingwiththepossessionoftheplaintiffandfromallottingthe
landinsuittoanybodyandtheappellantsseekingtobeimpleadedas
defendantsclaimtobeinpossessionofthelandinquestionand
successorinofficeofonewhowasadmittedlyoriginallyinpossession
oftheland,thecourtisjustifiedinimpleadingtheapplicantsasitis
goingtoadjudicateontherightsandtitletothelandinquestion,and
anyadjudicationwithregardtothelandinsuitisboundtoaffectthe
rightsandinterestsoftheapplicantsinthelandindispute,ifnot
directlyatleastindirectly.

Thecourtbelowhasnotcommittedanyerrorofjurisdictionindirecting
theimpleadmentoftheapplicantsastheorderpassedbyitisclearly
coveredbytheprovisionsofsubrule(2)ofRule10ofOrderI,C.P.C.

StatutoryPartyAddition:

Ifanylawprescribedthatacertainpersonmustbeimpleadedasa
defendant,eventhoughnoreliefissoughtagainsthim,thefailureto
impleadhimwillbefataltothesuit,notwithstandingtheprovisionof
OrderI,Rule9.Personswhoarenotessentialtobeimpleadedas
defendantstoasuitagainfallintwoclasses,(1)thosewhoarein
somewayinterestedin,orconnectedwith,thereliefsoughtagainst
othersand(2)others,whoarenotatallinterestedin,orconnected
with,it.

Personsofthelatterclassmustnotbeimpleadedasdefendantsatall,
butpersonsoftheformerclassmaybeimpleadedasproperpartiesat
thediscretionoftheplaintiffbywayofabundantcaution,ortoavoid
futurelitigationandthereliefwillnotberefusedonthegroundthat
theyhavenotbeenimpleaded.

OrderI,Rule10,forimpleadmentofnecessaryorproperpartyisnot
applicabletoprocedureprescribedundersections18and30ofLand
AcquisitionAct,beinginconsistentwithit.

AvoidanceofcollessivesuitbyasuomotuAdditionofPartiesby
Court:

TheprovisionsofOrderI,Rule10(2)oftheCodeclearlyempowerthe
Courttoimpleadanypersonaspartysuomotu,whooughttohave
beenjoined,whetherasplaintiffordefendant,orwhosepresence
beforetheCourtmaybenecessaryinordertoenabletheCourt
effectuallyandcompletelytoadjudicateuponandsettleallthe
questionsinvolvedinthesuit.
Incasetheplaintiffispermittedasaruletochoosehisownopponents
andtheCourtdoesnotinterfereonthepoint,inthateventitmaybe
thatacollusivedecreeisobtainedagainsttherealownerorinterested
personwithoutimpleadinghimasapartyandwhenthedecreewill
becomefinal,thenataverylatestagethepersonvitallyaffectedor
therealownermaycometoknowaboutit.

Thiswouldleadtodefeattheinterestofjusticewhichshouldnotbe
permittedinacourtoflawandtoavoidtheseuglysituationsthe
parliamentwithconsiderableingenuityenactedOrderI,Rule10(2)of
theCodewhichhasbeencouchedinalanguagehavingverywide
sweep.

RepresentativeSuits(OrderI,Rule8):

(1)Thegeneralruleisthatallpersonsinterestedinasuitoughttobe
madepartiesthereto,butthereisanexceptiontothisgeneralrule
whereoneormorepersonsmaysueordefendonbehalfofallhaving
thesameinterestinthesuit.Suchsuitsarecalledrepresentativesuits
andaregovernedbyOrderI,Rule8oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,
whichprovidesthatwheretherearenumerouspersonshavingthe
sameinterestinonesuit,(a)oneormoreofsuchpersonsmay,with
thepermissionofthecourt,sueorbesued,ormaydefendsuchsuit,
onbehalfof,orforthebenefitof,allpersonssointerested(b)the
courtmaydirectthatoneormoreofsuchpersonsmaysueorbe
sued,ormaydefendsuchsuit,onbehalfof,orforthebenefitof,all
personssointerested.

(2)Butthecourtshallinsuchcasegive,attheplaintiffsexpense,
noticeoftheinstitutionofthesuittoallsuchpersonseitherby
personalservice,orwherefromthenumberofpersonsoranyother
causesuchserviceisnotreasonablypracticable,bypublic
advertisement,asthecourtineachcasemaydirect.

(3)Anypersononwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitasuitisinstituted
ordefendedundersubrule(1)mayapplytothecourttobemadea
partytosuchsuit.

(4)Nopartoftheclaiminanysuitshallbeabandonedandnosuch
suitshallbewithdrawnandnoagreement,compromiseorsatisfaction
shallberecordedinanysuchsuit,unlessthecourthasgiven,atthe
plaintiffsexpense,noticetoallpersonssointerestedinthemanner
specifiedinsubrule(2).

(5)Whereanypersonsuingordefendinginanysuchsuitdoesnot
proceedwithduediligenceinthesuitordefence,thecourtmay
substituteinhisplaceanyotherpersonhavingthesameinterestin
thesuit.

(6)Adecreepassedinasuitunderthisruleshallbebindingonall
personsonwhosebehalf,orforwhosebenefit,thesuitisinstituted,or
defended,asthecasemaybe.

Explanation:

Forthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherthepersonswhosueorare
sued,ordefend,havethesameinterestinonesuit,itisnotnecessary
toestablishthatsuchpersonshavethesamecauseofactionasthe
persononwhosebehalf,orforwhosebenefits,theysueoraresued,
ordefendthesuit,asthecasemaybe.

ScopeofOrder1,Rule8ConditionsofitsApplicability:

Itwillthusbeseenfromtheabovethattherearefourconditions
beforetheprovisionsofthisrulecanapply.Theyareasunder:(1)the
partiesarenumerousthewordnumerousisbynomeansatermof
art.(2).Itimpliesagroupofpersons,suchaswouldmakeit
inconvenienttoimpleadallofthemindividually.Thewordisnot
synonymouswithnumberlessorinnumberable.Thenumbermust
bedefiniteforthecourttorecogniseasnonimpleadedpartiestothe
suittheyhavethesameinterest(3)thenecessarypermissionofthe
courthasbeenobtainedand(4)noticehasbeengiventoallthe
personsinterestedinthesuit.

NoticenotnecessaryincaseofBindingprecedent:

SupremeCourtdecisionwithregardtosettingupofshrimpculture
industrywithinprohibitedareaandinecologyfragilecoastalarea,was
renderedaftergivingwidestpublicity.Judgmentisbindingonall
personseveniftheywerenotpartiesinearliercase.Fewpersons
cannotbeallowedtobeheardagainonthepleathattheywere
unawareoftheproceedings.TheprincipleofOrderI,Rule8isnot
applicableincaseofbindingprecedent.

AimandObjectofRepresentativeSuitsProtectionoflarge
sectionsofsociety:

Theobjectoftheruleistoaffordconvenienceinsuitswherethereisa
communityofinterestamongstalargenumberofpersons,sothata
fewshouldbeallowedtorepresentthewholeinordertosavetrouble
andexpense.Itisdesignedtosavetimeandexpenseandtoinsurea
convenienttrialofquestionsinwhichalargebodyofpersonsare
interestedwhileavoidingmultiplicityofsuitsandharassmentto
parties.

Theobjectforwhichthisprovisionisenactedisreallytofacilitatethe
decisionofaquestioninwhichlargebodiesofpersonsareinterested
withoutrecoursetotheordinaryprocedure.Incaseswherethe
commonrightorinterestofacommunityofmembersofanassociation
orlargesectionsisinvolvedtherewillbeinsuperablepracticaldifficulty
intheinstitutionofsuitsundertheordinaryprocedure,whereeach
individualhastomaintainanactionbyaseparatesuit.

ResjudicataandRepresentativeSuit:

Adecreepassedinarepresentativesuitoperatesasresjudicataina
subsequentsuitagainstsuchinterestedpersonsalthoughtheymay
nothavebeenaddedaspartiestothesuit.ExplanationVItosection
11providesthatwherepersonslitigatebonafideinrespectofapublic
rightorofaprivaterightclaimedincommonforthemselvesand
others,allpersonsinterestedinsuchrightshall,forthepurposesof
thissection,bedeemedtoclaimunderthepersonssolitigating.

PermissionofCourtMandatory:

Thesuitmighthavebeeninstitutedbyrepresentativesofaparticular
community,butthatbyitselfwasnotsufficienttoconstitutethesuitas
arepresentativesuit.Forarepresentativesuit,thecourtspermission
underOrderI,Rule8,C.RC.ismandatory.

Itmaybestatedthatanymemberofacommunitymaysuccessfully
bringasuittoasserthisrighttothecommunitypropertyorfor
protectingsuchpropertybyseekingremovalofencroachmentsthere
from.SuchasuitneednotcomplywiththerequirementsofOrderI,
Rule8.Thesuitagainstallegedtrespassevenifitwasnota
representativesuitonbehalfofthecommunitywouldbeasuitofthis
category.

OrderI,Rule8NotExhaustiveofRepresentativeSuits
Withdrawal:

OrderI,Rule8,C.RC.isnotexhaustiveofrepresentativesuits.A
representativesuitfallingwithinOrderI,Rule8,C.P.C.maynotbe
withdrawnwithoutleaveofthecourtforthesuititselfisinstitutedafter
noticetoallsuchpersonsonwhosebehalfitisinstitutedand
consequentlywithdrawalcouldbeonlyafternoticetothem.
Butthosearenottheonlysuitswhichcannotbeallowedtobe
withdrawnwithoutnoticetotheothershavingsimilarinterestinthe
subjectmatterthereareothersuitsalsowhichfallintothisclassand
suchsuitsaresuitsforpartition,suitsforaccounts,suitsforspecific
performance,inallofwhichnotmerelytheplaintiffbuteventhe
defendantmaybeentitledtosomerelief.

Includedinsuchsuitsarealsosuitsbytrusteeswhichmayaffectthe
entirebodyofthetrusteesandthebeneficiaries.Suchsuits,or
appealswhicharemerelycontinuationofthesuits,cannotbeallowed
tobewithdrawn,withoutreferencetoothershavingasimilarinterest
forthatwouldsetatnaughtallproceedings.

Whiletheplaintiffisundoubtedlydominuslitisandmaywithdrawand
putanendtotheproceedingsunconditionally,stillinthe
aforementionedcasesifanypartyinterestedseekstocomeonrecord
andcontinuetheproceedings,heisentitledtodoso.Nay,itwouldbe
thedutyofthecourttopermitsuchpersontocomeonrecordand
thatwouldnotmerelyavoidmultiplicityofproceedingsbutwould
effectivelysafeguardtheinterestofallconcerned.

IllustrationofapplicabilityofdoctrineofResjudicata:

ThesuitwaslaidagainsttheRSSrepresentedbyitsManager,the
Presidentandamember.Thesuitwasdecreedbythetrialcourtand
confirmedbytheHighCourtandspecialleavepetitionagainstthat
orderwasalsodismissed.

However,inacivilrevision,theHighCourtdeclaredthedecreeas
illegalonthegroundthattherepresentativesuitwasfiledwithout
leaveofthecourt.TheSupremeCourtheldinSinghaiLaiChandJain
v.RashtriyaSwayamSewakSangh,Pannaandothers,thatclause(b)
ofOrderI,Rule8wasclearlyapplicableandthatthePresident,the
ManagerandamemberoltheRSSdulyrepresentedtheSanghand
defendedthesuitforthebenefitofallthepersonssointerestedinthe
Sanghandthatthedoctrineofresjudicataprohibitedthemembersof
theRSStoobstructtheexecutionofthedecree.Theappealwas
accordinglyallowed.

Powerofcourttopermitapersonorbodyofpersonstopresent
opinionortotakepartintheproceedings.Whiletryingasuit,the
courtmay,ifsatisfiedthatapersonorbodyofpersonsinterestedin
anyquestionoflawwhichisdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueinthe
suitandthatitisnecessaryinthepublicinteresttoallowthatperson
orbodyofpersonstopresenthisoritsopiniononthatquestionoflaw,
permitthatpersonorbodyofpersonstopresentsuchopinion,andto
takesuchpartintheproceedingsofthesuitasthecourtmayspecify
(OrderI,Rule8A).

Welcometo
Shareyouressays.com!Our
missionistoprovideanonline
platformtohelpstudentsto
discussanythingandeverything
aboutEssay.Thiswebsite
includesstudynotes,research
papers,essays,articlesand
otheralliedinformation
submittedbyvisitorslikeYOU.

Before publishing your Essay

on this site, please read the
followingpages:

1.ContentGuidelines
2.PrivacyPolicy
3.TOS
4.DisclaimerCopyright

PublishYourEssay

ADVERTISEMENTS:

ABOUTUS

Publish
YourEssays

Content
Quality
Guidelines