Order 1 CPC – Parties to Suit: Joinder, Non-Joinder, and Representative Suits Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 deals with the rules regarding parties to a suit. It lays down who can be joined as plaintiffs or defendants, when parties must be added, and how the court ensures effective adjudication. The objective is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, reduce expenses, and make sure all necessary parties are present before the court. Joinder of Parties under Order 1 CPC The concept of joinder of parties arises when: • An act is done by two or more persons together, or • An act affects two or more persons together. There are two kinds of joinder under Order 1 CPC: 1. Joinder of Plaintiffs (Order 1 Rule 1) All persons may be joined as plaintiffs if: • Their right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction (whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative), and • If they filed separate suits, common questions of law or fact would arise. Example: If A assaults B and C in the same incident, both B and C can join as plaintiffs in one suit. Counter Example: If A has four separate contracts with B, C, D, and E, they cannot jointly sue A, because each has a separate cause of action. 2. Joinder of Defendants (Order 1 Rule 3) Multiple persons can be joined as defendants if: • The right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction, and • Common questions of law or fact would arise if separate suits were filed. Example: If A suffers injury due to the negligence of both a bus driver (B) and a car driver (C), A can sue both together in one suit. Moreover, under Order 1 Rule 7, if the plaintiff is unsure who is liable, he can sue multiple defendants in the alternative and leave the decision to the court. Power of Court to Order Separate Trials Even if conditions for joinder are satisfied, the court may order separate trials under: • Order 1 Rule 2 – for plaintiffs (court may ask them to make an “election” who continues in the suit). • Order 1 Rule 3A – for defendants (court may separate trials, but defendants cannot “opt out” themselves). This ensures that joinder does not cause embarrassment, confusion, or delay in proceedings. Necessary and Proper Parties Order 1 CPC distinguishes between: • Necessary Party → Without whom no effective decree can be passed. • Proper Party → Whose presence is not essential but is helpful for complete adjudication. In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992), the Supreme Court held that two conditions must exist for a necessary party: 1. There must be a right to relief against such party, and 2. No effective order can be passed without him. Example: In a dispossession case against C, if A and B are joint owners, both must be parties. Without B, the decree would be ineffective. Non-Joinder and Misjoinder of Parties • Non-joinder → Failure to include a necessary or proper party. • Misjoinder → Inclusion of a party who does not satisfy the requirements of Order 1 Rule 1 or 3. ✓ According to Order 1 Rule 9, a suit will not be defeated merely due to misjoinder or non-joinder, except when a necessary party is not joined. • Order 1 Rule 13 mandates objections be raised at the earliest stage. • Section 99 CPC prevents reversal of decrees on appeal due to misjoinder/non-joinder, except in the case of a necessary party. Thus, non-joinder of a necessary party is fatal, but misjoinder or non-joinder of proper parties does not affect the decree. Addition, Substitution, and Transposition of Parties (Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) The court has wide powers under Order 1 Rule 10 to add, strike out, substitute, or transpose parties at any stage of the proceedings, including the appellate stage. • Substitution: If the wrong person has been made plaintiff by mistake. • Addition: If a necessary party is missing. • Transposition: A pro forma defendant can be shifted as a plaintiff if justice requires. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum (1958), the Supreme Court held that substitution or addition may be allowed at any stage if it is necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute. Representative Suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC A representative suit allows one or more persons to sue or defend on behalf of a larger group having the same interest in the matter. The conditions are: 1. The parties must be numerous. 2. They must have the same interest. 3. Court’s permission is necessary. 4. Notice must be issued to all persons being represented. The purpose is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective adjudication. In T.N. Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy (1990), the Supreme Court held that even if each allottee received a separate notice, a representative suit was valid since the grievance (excess demand) was common to all. • Binding Effect: The decision binds all represented persons through res judicata. • Withdrawal/Compromise: Cannot be done without court’s permission and notice to all concerned (Order 23 Rule 3B). • Substitution: If a representative is negligent, the court may substitute him with another member of the same group. Conclusion Order 1 CPC plays a crucial role in civil litigation by determining who should or may be made a party to the suit. It ensures that necessary parties are included, prevents unnecessary multiplicity of suits, and provides for representative actions where large groups are affected by the same issue. Provisions relating to non-joinder, misjoinder, and representative suits strike a balance between judicial efficiency and fairness. By giving the court wide discretion in adding or removing parties, Order 1 strengthens the justice delivery system and ensures that disputes are adjudicated completely and effectively. ✓ To start your preparation for Judicial Services Examination at home, drop a message on WhatsApp +91 8840961324 or call us on…