|
Introduction
The presence of opposing parties is one of the essential
requirements of any civil suit. But all parties are not necessary
for the suit to be adjudicated upon. Therefore, necessary and
non-necessary parties have to be distinguished between. ‘Necessary
Parties’ are those parties from whom relief is claimed.
‘Non-necessary Parties’ are
those parties who may be party to the suit, but from whom no
relief has been claimed. The presence of necessary parties is
obviously required for the court to adjudicate and pass an
effective and complete decree granting relief to the plaintiff.
However, the same does not hold good for non-necessary parties. In
the absence of necessary parties, the court may dismiss the suit,
as it shall not be able to pass an effective decree. But a suit
can never be dismissed due to absence of non-necessary parties.
The underlying logic is that the burden of providing relief should
rest upon all the defendants. It would be unfair if only some of
the defendants had to discharge this burden. Therefore, the
plaintiff has to implead all those parties from whom he is
claiming relief to the suit.
The Code of Civil Procedure, the procedural law relating to civil
suits can be classified into two parts, "Body
of the Code" and "Rules".
The latter deals with non-joinder of parties. Order 1, Rule 9 lays
down the procedure to be followed in cases of non-joinder of
parties. This shall be discussed in greater detail in the course
of this article.
‘Non-joinder’ can be defined
as an omission to join some person as a party to a suit, whether
as plaintiff or as defendant, who ought to have been joined
according to the law. In other words, non-joinder means an
omission to join a party to the suit. The Code does not define
non-joinder, but lays down "No suit shall
be defeated by reason of … non-joinder of parties, and the court
may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as
regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before
it. " The proviso to this Rule however excludes its
applicability to cases of non-joinder of necessary parties.
‘Necessary Parties’ are those
parties in the absence of whom no effective decree can be passed
by the court. For instance, in a suit filed against a partnership
firm, all partners would be necessary parties. As against this,
non-necessary parties are those parties in the absence of whom the
court can still adjudicate in an effective manner.
If a suit is dismissed straightaway for a non-joinder of necessary
parties, the plaintiff will have to file the suit again, resulting
in multiplicity of litigation. The Code, through various legal
provisions seeks to prevent multiplicity of litigation. For this
reason, the court may add the necessary parties on its own, or may
even direct the plaintiff to do so. However, since adding
necessary parties to the suit is procedural in nature, the same
has to be done at the time of trial, but without prejudice to the
plea of limitation of the parties involved.
In this article, the researcher shall first begin with the meaning
of joinder of parties to a suit. Thereafter, he shall address the
question of who are the necessary parties to a suit. Finally, the
legal consequences of non-joinder of necessary parties shall be
analyzed with reference to case laws, so as to appreciate the
judicial interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.
Joinder Of Parties
A. Meaning And Essential Requirements Of A Civil Suit
Civil Law represents an individual’s private right of action for
redress. A civil suit (also referred to as a ‘civil proceeding’ or
simply ‘suit’) is a process for recovery of an individual right or
redress of an individual wrong. The essential requirements of any
civil suit, according to the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Krishnappa v. Shivappa are the opposing
parties, the subject matter in dispute, the cause of action and
the relief claimed by the plaintiff. For the purposes
of the project, we shall be concerned only with the opposing
parties.
The opposing parties quite logically would refer to the plaintiff
and the defendant. Since civil law deals with only those rights
that are private in nature, legal action for enforcing the same
can be initiated only by he whose civil rights have been violated.
Thus, there has to be a plaintiff in civil suits. The plaintiff
would demand relief from the person who has violated his civil
rights, the defendant. The parties to a suit shall be either on
the side of the plaintiff or the defendant. What has to be
considered is to what extent should parties be joined to a suit.
In this connection, the Code provides for compulsory joinder of
all those parties necessary for the court to decide the suit, and
consequently grant relief to the plaintiff.
B. When Can Joinder Of Parties Take Place?
‘Joinder Of Parties’ means
joining several parties as plaintiffs or defendants in the same
suit. All or any of those persons can be joined to a suit as
plaintiffs or defendants in whom the right to any relief is
alleged to exist, or who is alleged to possess any interest in the
subject-matter of litigation, or in the opinion of the court is a
proper or a necessary party. The fundamental consideration appears
to be the existence of a right of relief in relation to the party.
The opinion of the court shall also be based upon whether there is
a right of relief in relation to the party in question.
In the Code, Order 1 deals with parties to a suit.
Inter alia, it provides for
joinder of defendants, and plaintiffs. The plaintiff can implead
defendants to a suit. In Mosley v.
General Motors Corp. Ltd., the plaintiff (Nathaniel
Mosley) along with 9 other persons joined in bringing an action
individually and as class representatives alleging their rights
under a statute were denied by General Motors, Local 25, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of America
(Union), simply by reason of their colour and race. The plaintiffs
intended to bring about a joinder of defendants. On this point,
the district court held that there could not be a joinder of
defendants since joint actions would mean a number of issues that
would have little relationship with one another. The essential
requirement in this connection is that issues of fact or law have
to be similar. Not all the issues need to be similar, nor do the
issues have to be identical. Relying upon a decided case, the
court held that a joinder can take place only when
there is a right of relief out of the
same transaction, and issues of fact/law involved are common to
all the plaintiffs. The concerned court may also
order separate trials if it is of the opinion that joint trials
will involve delay or prejudice the defendants. The civil court
shall apply its discretion in this respect, and its decision can
be reversed on appeal only if it can be proved that there was an
abuse of such discretion. The interests of both sides have to be
ensured. On the one hand, the plaintiff has to be entitled to
speedy relief, thus enabling him to file a single suit against
several defendants. At the same time, the defendants should not be
prejudiced in their representation in the suit, or they shall be
denied their right to a fair hearing.
In the present case, the court also discussed the policy and law
governing the operation of Rule 20 of the
Federal Rules. The purpose of this rule is to promote
trial convenience, and also expedite final determination of
disputes. Single trials are generally known to reduce delay, cost
and inconvenience to all concerned, not just the parties but also
the courts. The US judiciary, as is the case in India too,
strongly encourages joinder of claims, parties and remedies, as
evident from the following words of the US Supreme Court,
"Under the Rule the impulse is towards
entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with
fairness to the parties." In India, the legal position
relating to joinder of parties can found in Order 1, Rules 1 and
3[16]. According to the aforesaid, the joinder of plaintiffs and
defendants requires a right of relief in respect of the same act
or transaction, which has to be alleged to exist. Apart from this,
there have to be common issues of fact or law involved. All those
issues do not have to be common, but even if there is a single
common issues, that shall permit a joinder of parties. Thus, it
may be concluded that the legal position relating to joinder of
parties in both Indian and US legal systems is substantially
similar. The fundamental considerations in both systems are the
same, and so are the purposes of the aforesaid legal provisions.
At the same time, how far should modern procedure provide for
autonomy to plaintiffs in impleading defendants? Should the
plaintiffs have the final word as to the joinder of defendants? In
Watergate Landmark Condominium Unit
Owners' Association v. Wiss, Janey, Elestner Associates,
the limits of the plaintiffs to join additional parties were laid
down. The plaintiffs hired a real estate management firm to
oversee maintenance of the units. On receiving complaints from
owners about balconies crumbling, the firm hired an engineering
firm (the defendants) to draw specifications for carrying out
repairs, on the basis of which another agency was hired. Not
satisfied about the repairs, the plaintiffs sought relief from the
real estate and management firm, but not against the agency
conducting the repairs. In this case, the court held that claims
could not be filed against third parties in the absence of any
secondary liability, as per Rule 14 (a). Further, it was held that
the statute provides for a right of contribution "only
where the person injured has a right of action against two persons
for the same and indivisible injury." Finally, the
plaintiff failed to join the parties since there was no joint
liability.
As far as joinder of plaintiffs is concerned, the important factor
is that there should be a common act or transaction out of which
the relief is claimed, and not common causes of action. So, it is
even possible for several plaintiffs to be joined together in a
suit, so long as the aforesaid requirements are satisfied.
However, persons may be jointly interested in a suit, in which
case their interests have to be common, and in no way
antagonistic. Moreover, their interest has to lie in the subject
matter of the suit, not in any other question that may be
incidental or secondary to the main issue in question. Similar to
joinder of defendants, there has to be a common (not identical)
issue of fact or law involved.
Necessary Parties
A. Who Are The Necessary Parties To A Civil Suit?
A necessary party is a party without impleading whom a claim
cannot be legally settled by court. In other words, in the absence
of a necessary party, no effective and complete decree can be
passed by the court. There is no standard for determining who are
the necessary parties to a suit. This shall depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. For instance, in a suit filed
against a public servant in relation to his public functions, the
government shall have to be impleaded but in a suit filed against
the same person in relation to his not paying maintenance to his
divorced wife, the government shall not be a necessary party.
As already mentioned, there is a distinction between necessary and
non-necessary (proper) parties. In the absence of a necessary
party, no order can be effectively passed by the court. However, a
proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be
passed; whose presence is not needed for a complete and effective
adjudication.
B. Test For Determining The Necessary Parties To A Civil Suit
Although there is no definite test to be applied in this
connection, the tests that have been laid down in
Deputy Commissioner of Hardoi v. Rama
Krishna, are as follows:
# There has to be a right of relief against such a party in
respect of the matters involved in the suit.
# The court must not be in a position to pass an effective decree
in the absence of such a party.
Generally, a party from whom no relief is sought is not a
necessary party. In Pravin v. State of
Maharashtra, the government bought a plot of land under
a statute, and afterwards, sold it to the appellant. The sale was
declared invalid by the Supreme Court. The original owner sought
relief. It was held that the party which had purchased the plot of
land from the government was not a necessary party, because no
relief was claimed from it. In Gujarat
SRTC v. Saroj, the legal representatives of the
deceased driver of a car which collided with a SRTC bus, claimed
compensation from the SRTC. In the present suit, it was held that
the owner of the car and its insurer were not necessary parties
since no relief had been claimed from them. Thus, the nature of
relief claimed is important in deciding who is a necessary party.
Necessary parties are essentially those parties from whom the
plaintiff has claimed relief, not those parties from whom he may
claim relief. Proper parties need not be impleaded. Therefore, if
complete and effective relief can be claimed by the plaintiff from
some parties, there is no need to join other parties since other
parties are not necessary parties.
In relation to companies, and similar entities that exist
independently of their members, a suit against the entity does not
amount to a suit against its members. If the plaintiff has been
granted permission to file a suit against the company, it does not
allow him to do so against the individual directors. The principle
of "lifting the corporate veil"
is inapplicable in such cases, because the wrong being complained
of is civil in nature[25]. However, this legal principle shall not
apply to partnership firms and trust, since they do not enjoy a
legal existence independent of their members. In general, if a
suit is instituted against a particular identifiable group, all
the members of such a group have to be impleaded whether in
personal or in representative capacity. So a suit filed if filed
against a partnership firm has to implead all the partners. Their
absence may lead to dismissal of suit. Similarly, if a suit is
filed against a trustee, all the trustees have to be impleaded,
otherwise no decree may be passed.
The government enjoys no immunity in so far as civil suits are
concerned. If the government issues a notification, against which
the plaintiff chooses to file a suit, the government shall also be
a necessary party. In suits that are filed against a public
officer, for damages or for any other relief, in respect of an act
done by him in official capacity, the government will also be a
necessary party.
In General Manager, South Central
Railway, Secunderabad v. AVR Siddhantti, there was a
non-joinder of parties. The plaintiff claimed relief against the
Railways by impleading it through its representatives. The
appellants contended that the employees who were likely to be
affected by the decision had not been impleaded. Further, it was
contended that since they were necessary parties, their
non-joinder was fatal to the petition. However, the Supreme Court
turned down this preliminary objection, holding that the relief
was being claimed against the Railways only and it had been
impleaded through its representative. Employees who were likely to
be affected by the decision were at best proper parties. Their
non-joinder could not be said to be fatal to the petition. This
supports the proposition that a necessary party is one against
whom relief is claimed. Those who are likely to be affected by the
decision of the court do not automatically become necessary
parties. The court may adjudicate upon their rights and
liabilities, but their presence is not needed to pass an order.
The purpose of any civil suit is to grant relief to the plaintiff
whose civil rights have been infringed. Therefore, adjudication
upon rights and liabilities of parties should be done only to that
extent. However, anybody whose interest is likely to be directly
affected by the decision of the court is a necessary party. But
this means such a person should be called upon to bear the relief
claimed by the plaintiff.
In K Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar,
the question of who are the necessary parties to an election
petition was decided upon. An election petition can call into
question any election, challenging the fairness of the election,
and may be presented by any candidate or elector. A petitioner may
further pray for a declaration that he or any other candidate has
been duly elected. In such a situation, he must implead all
contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and also anyone
against whom he has alleged use of unfair practices. Such
contesting candidates will have to be joined as respondents to
such a petition. Any failure to do so will amount to non-joinder
of necessary parties. This defect cannot be cured by way of an
amendment of the petition, since the Election Tribunal does not
enjoy the authority to amend the petition after it has been
presented.
In Praveen Bhatia v. Dr. M Ghosh,
the plaintiff filed a suit against a doctor due to whose
negligence his wife had died. The doctor was held to be a
necessary party (since relief has been claimed from him). But the
insurance company with whom the insurance has been obtained is
neither a necessary nor a proper party, since no relief has been
claimed from it.
Consequences Of Non - Joinder Of Parties
A. Meaning Of Non - Joinder
‘Non-joinder’ means an omission to join some person as a party to
a suit, whether as plaintiff or as defendant who ought to have
been joined according to the law. Non-joinder of parties refers to
a situation in which those parties whose presence is essential and
in whose absence no effective decree can be passed by the court
have not been impleaded. They are those parties who should have
been joined under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code. In contrast,
presence of proper parties is needed only for the court's
convenience in deciding the dispute. The court shall in their
presence only be able to decide the dispute completely and
effectively.
B. Difference Between Non - Joinder And Misjoinder
‘Misjoinder’ of parties means a joinder of a party who ought not
to have been joined either as a plaintiff or as a defendant. In
other words, it refers to impleading an unnecessary party. It may
also refer to a situation in which a plaintiff is impleaded as a
defendant and vice-versa (party wrongfully impleaded).
However, ‘Non-joinder’ refers to a situation when a party who
ought to have been impleaded according to the law is not impleaded.
As opposed to presence of the wrong party, it refers to absence of
a party. In case of non-joinder of necessary parties, the suit may
be dismissed, but this is not so in case of misjoinder.
C. Consequences Of Non - Joinder Of Necessary Parties
Non-joinder of parties is not fatal to a suit. However, a
distinction between non-joinder of someone who ought to have been
joined and someone whose joinder is only necessary for convenience
is necessary. The former are necessary parties, while the latter
are only proper parties. Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code deals with
non-joinder of parties, but is only a procedural provision, which
does not affect the substantive rights and duties of parties.
The absence of necessary parties means those parties from whom
relief is being claimed are not present, due to which the court
cannot pass any effective decree. In such circumstances, the suit
can but does not have to be dismissed. If found legally
justifiable, the court should grant the relief being claimed by
the plaintiff by passing a decree between the parties actually
before it, so long as that can be done legally and
effectively. The defendant can plead non - joinder of parties
by the plaintiff. However, he shall have to specify who those
parties are and what their interest is in the suit. The defendant
has to claim a non-joinder of parties at the earliest, in the
written statement. However, he is also required to specify who are
the parties who he wants should be impleaded, and the rights
claimed by them. Should he only give a vague statement in this
respect, it is not sufficient to dismiss the suit on the ground of
non-joinder of parties. In the present suit, the plaintiff claimed
a recovery of possession. The original owner passed away leaving
four sons, of whom one son passed away. That son came to be
substituted by his son. The sale deed was executed by Gopalji’s
sons and his grandson. The appellant took the stand that he
intended to purchase the entire right, title and interest in the
suit property. The defendant contended that in the absence of the
owner the plaintiff’s suit is not maintainable and should be
dismissed. The Supreme Court however refused to dismiss the suit
on the grounds of non-joinder of parties since his plea relating
to non-joinder was found to be vague. The court also upheld an
important legal principle - in a suit claiming property, until and
unless all the other co-owners are not impleaded, the suit shall
not be maintainable. (In Laxmishankar Hairshankar Bhatt v.
Yashram Vasta )
The general principle of law is that the plea of non-joinder
should be raised at the earliest available opportunity. However,
an exception is partition suits, in which the plea of non-joinder
of parties can be raised at any point of time. The reason for
this, as laid down in Shanmugham v. Saraswati
is that this
materially affects the subject - matter involved in the suit.
The law however only assists the plaintiff on this point. So if he
persistently refuses to implead proper parties, the courts shall
act contrary to the and dismiss the suit. In a civil suit it is
the plaintiff who has to claim relief. However, he has to implead
the necessary parties to a suit. Should he refuse to do so even
after an objection is raised in this connection, the suit will be
dismissed.
Rules 9 and 10 of Order 1 are essentially complementary in nature.
The latter inter alia deals with the
addition of parties to a suit, by which the court can
on its own or by an application by any of the parties order a
party to be joined as plaintiff or defendant if it feels its "presence may be necessary in order to
enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and
settle all the questions involved in the suit. " By
invoking this fairly widely worded provision, the court can order
any of the necessary or even proper parties to be joined. The main
advantage herein is that it confers upon the court to rectify a
situation in which the plaintiff has failed to join the necessary
parties, instead of dismissing the suit. Moreover, the addition of
parties to a suit can take place at any point of time. But the
defendant should not be likely to be prejudiced by this. In other
words, this should not affect him in preparing for his defense;
otherwise it denies him a fair trial, guaranteed to him under the
Constitution. The plaint shall have to however be amended to this
extent, but that is only a procedural requirement. The court also
has the inherent jurisdiction to add or delete
parties from the suit, which it may do at any point of time. Thus,
the court may save a suit if due to a bona fide mistake it is
instituted in the name of the wrong plaintiff, or it is not
certain whether it has been instituted in the name of the right
plaintiff. However, being a general provision, it cannot override
specific ones. For instance, the Representation of Peoples' Act
enjoins the penalty of dismissal of an election petition for
non-joinder of parties. So the court cannot override this
provision by invoking Order 1, Rule 10.
The plea of non-joinder has to be pressed at the earliest
opportunity in the trial court. It may also be taken in the
appellate court, but cannot be successfully raised in the second
appeal. The underlying logic is procedural defects in a suit
should be checked at the earliest. To this extent, the plaint may
be amended. If the defendant does not object to non-joinder of
parties in the written statement, it will be deemed that he is not
interested in objecting. Essentially procedural in nature, it
shall not apply to determine the substantive rights of
parties. Holding that joinder or non-joinder of parties is too
technical, it was held that this shall not operate to deny a
person any benefit under any enactment. In
Narendra Singh v.
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi, the
benefit of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act was extended to
the plaintiff even though the suit suffered from a non-joinder of
parties. At the same time, non-joinder should not be construed too
liberally; otherwise the parties shall stand to lose. If a
partnership firm against another firm files a suit, all the
partners have to be impleaded as plaintiffs but not their legal
representatives. For this reason, in Brij Kishore Sharma v. Ram
Singh, the Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the trial
court, held that the suit is not maintainable. Pending the suit,
one of the parties died and his legal representatives were not
brought on record. In the opinion of the court, the legal
representatives should have been brought on record.
D. Compulsory Joinder, And Addition Of Parties
Compulsory joinder of parties obviously brings one to the question
of whether certain persons not joined as parties actually have
sufficient interests in the suit, to the extent that they must be
joined. Also, if they cannot be joined, will the suit be allowed
to proceed, or will it have to be dismissed. The history of the
law governing compulsory joinder of parties is rather complicated.
With reference to the American law on this point, some of the
applicable principles, also recognized in India are:
#
All those who are interested in a controversy are necessary
parties to a suit involving that controversy, so that a complete
disposition of the dispute may be made.
#
Joinder of necessary parties is not necessary when it is
impossible, impractical or involves undue complications.
#
A party unless represented by one who is a party is not bound by
the decree.
The rule of indispensable party was based on the premise that a
court should do "complete justice or none at all.
" Therefore, if a
party in the absence of whom a suit cannot be decided is not impleaded, the suit shall be dismissed. However, there was an
inherent fallacy that the court could only deal with those parties
actually before it. In Shields v. Barrow, the US Supreme
Court held that parties to a suit can be classified into
" necessary " and "indispensable
", according to the nature of their
rights. The Federal Rules of 1938 also recognized this legal
position. Under Rule 19, possessing "joint interest
" is what
distinguished permissive and compulsory joinder. No guidelines
have been provided in this respect, thus showing the requirements
of compulsory joinder have to be decided in the light of the facts
and circumstances of each case. In Pulitzer
Polster v.
Pulitzer, the US Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of
whether the district court has abused its discretion in dismissing
a suit by invoking Rule 19, instead of allowing it to proceed in
the absence of parties. The plaintiff sought damages from her
uncle, because of the alleged improprieties while he was acting as
the sole voting trustee of Wembley Industries Inc. Prior to the
suit, her mother and sister had brought a suit in Louisiana state
court, out of the same dispute, wherein the suit was dismissed for
non-joinder of necessary parties. The US Supreme Court held that
the relevant federal rules intend to bring all those having an
interest in the subject of an action together in one forum so that
the suit may be disposed off fairly and completely. The court also
referred to a decided case wherein it had been held that
Rule 19
(b) deals with the interests of the plaintiff, defendant,
absentees, and public. The plaintiff’s interest would be in relief
being available to him in a single suit, while that of the
defendant would be in preventing multiplicity of litigation,
inconsistent relief, or sole liability for the wrongs that he
himself has not committed. Rule 19 (a) defines those who are
needed for the purpose of adjudication of disputes. It is meant to
identify those cases wherein an absent person should be joined if
feasible. In other words, such cases include those in which the
existing suit cannot properly achieve its purpose, or in which
there is the likelihood of unfair repercussions to the absent
parties. However, sometimes it is not feasible to join a party
needed for adjudication. In such circumstances, it is for the
judge to decide whether in equity or good conscience the judgment
should stand
As has already been noted, addition of necessary parties may be
ordered by the court. Though a necessary party has a right to be
included to the suit, that is not so in case of a proper party.
However, even a proper party may apply to the court to be joined.
The court must primarily consider whether the presence of that
party would enable the total adjudication of the suit or not. The
discretion of the court is wide in this respect. If the presence
of such a party is essential or highly desirable, in the interests
of justice, the court can order the same. In
Raja Ram v. Anant
Ram , a suit had been filed for the dissolution of partnership
and accounts in which one partner was the head of a joint Hindu
family business. The son of such a partner was held to be a
necessary party who could be impleaded to the suit. However, the
court would not be adjudicating upon his rights so as to grant
relief to the plaintiff.
The question of addition of parties is essentially a judicial
discretion that shall have to be exercised in the light of the
facts and circumstances of each case. The court may be of the
opinion that adding a party would be better so as to enable it to
effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy. The
principle of direct interest shall be suitably liberalized in such
a case. The addition of parties may be justified if at the time of
instituting the suit, he was not impleaded for some reasons. Also,
it may be likely that the party may not have been a necessary or
proper party at that point of time, but subsequently the position
has changed. The underlying characteristic shall still be that his
presence shall be helpful in enabling the court to decide the
dispute. This was held in Setabi Devi v. Ramadhani Shaw. The
purpose of this provision is to give an opportunity to all parties
to be heard. Thus, those parties from whom no relief has been
claimed may also be added, since they may be affected as a
consequence of the decree.
Consequences Of Non - Joinder Of Parties That Are Not Necessary
Parties
Non-joinder is not sufficient reason to dismiss the suit if the
parties not impleaded are not necessary parties. The court shall
in such a situation first call upon the plaintiff to chose that he
wants to proceed against with the suit. The plaintiff has to
decide who he would like to claim relief from. If he does not
implead a particular party, that party shall not be a bound by the
decree passed.
The researcher would like to contend that while a misjoinder can
be solved simply by adding or deleting the names of parties, this
cannot be done as far as non-joinder is concerned. Thus, there is
an anomaly since both have the same consequence - the plaintiff is
unable to effectively claim relief from the defendant. In case of
a misjoinder, the suit shall have to be returned for the plaintiff
to decide from whom he wants to claim relief, whereas in cases of
non-joinder, the suit shall ordinarily be dismissed if there is a
non-joinder of necessary parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authored by Ashwini Chawla and can be reached at
:
ashwinichawla@legalserviceindia.com
|
