If a "necessary party" isn't impleaded, the suit can be dismissed- Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

The Supreme Court, a lawsuit risks being dismissed if a "necessary party" is not impleaded. According to the court, two conditions must be met in order for a party to qualify as a required party: (1) the party must have a legal claim to relief with respect to the issues at issue in the proceedings; and (2) no effective decree can be issued without the presence of the party.

No lawsuit shall be dismissed due to improper or nonexistent party joining, and the court may, in each lawsuit, deal with the disputed issue insofar as it relates to the rights and interests of the parties already in front of it. This is stated in Order I Rule 9. Nevertheless, the proviso to this Rule makes it clear that nothing in this rule shall apply if a necessary party does not participate.

The Trial Court in this case ruled an action for specific performance and rejected the argument that the defendant's wife and sons are required parties to this suit and that their refusal to participate is prejudicial to the suit. The decree was upheld by the First Appellate Court. The High Court invalidated the judgement in the Second Appeal.

In an appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant's attorney, Rahul Chitnis, argued that it was not at all essential to include the defendant's wife or sons as party defendants because the contract was only between the plaintiff and the defendant. On the other hand, senior attorney Harin P. Raval, who was presenting on behalf of the respondents, said that because the plaintiff had confessed that the defendant, his wife, and three kids owned the suit property, the suit had little chance of success on its own.

The court pointed out that because the defendant, his wife, and his three boys jointly owned the subject property, no valid judgement affecting their rights could have been rendered without their involvement. The plaintiff has decided not to name the defendant's wife and three sons as party defendants, the court said, despite the defendant raising an objection in that regard.

The bench noted while rejecting the appeal.

Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan

Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi