Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 1292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J.
Shibu S. – Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Registrar Of Cooperative Societies (General)/Arbitrator – Respondent
Wp(C) No. 6186 Of 2026
Decided On : 07-08-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Impleadment of Parties
Act Referred
KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES : R.47(d)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.1 R.10, O.1 R.10(2)
Headnote
(B) In proceedings before an arbitrator under Section 69 of the Act, the principle of dominus litis applies: the plaintiff (co‑operative society) cannot be compelled to implead parties against whom it does not seek relief, unless the presence of such party is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The test is whether a proposed party has a direct and legal interest in the controversy and whether an effective decree can be passed without that party. A defendant cannot insist that the plaintiff must proceed against other persons (e.g., managing committee members) when the relief is confined to the defendant and another employee. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(C) While the court or arbitrator retains power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to add parties, that power is an exception to dominus litis and must be exercised only when the person to be added is a necessary party. The plaintiff’s choice of adversaries is generally respected unless the rule of law compels otherwise. (Paras 6, 7, 8 quoting Maniyappan T.V. v. Pattanakkad Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd., 2020 (4) KHC 733; Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson, (2020) 13 SCC 733; NAK Engineering Company Pvt Ltd v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah, (2026) 3 SCC 631)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, former Secretary of a co‑operative bank, was a respondent in ARC No.77/2024 under Section 69 of the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Act, 1969, filed by the bank for recovery of Rs.89,85,296 with interest. The petitioner filed a reply contending that the former managing committee members were necessary parties. He filed I.A. No.1/2026 to implead those persons. The arbitrator dismissed the application by Ext.P5 order, holding that the proposed parties were not necessary. The petitioner challenged that order in this writ petition.
Issues: Whether a defendant in proceedings under Section 69 of the Act can compel the plaintiff (the cooperative bank) to implead additional parties against whom no relief is claimed, and whether the arbitrator erred in dismissing the impleadment application.
Findings of Court:
The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the bank, as plaintiff, is dominus litis and cannot be forced to fight against parties it does not wish to sue. The test of necessity under Order I Rule 10 CPC was correctly applied by the arbitrator; the presence of the proposed parties was not required for effective adjudication of the dispute between the bank and the petitioner. The petitioner’s remedy is to show his own lack of responsibility, not to insist on impleading others. The court, however, clarified that the dismissal of the impleadment application does not prevent the petitioner from raising any contention that he is not responsible for the alleged loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of dominus litis governs arbitration proceedings under the Co‑operative Societies Act; a defendant cannot compel the impleadment of parties against whom the plaintiff does not seek relief unless the presence of such parties is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. The arbitrator’s decision to deny impleadment was correct because the bank’s claim was confined to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and the petitioner failed to show that the proposed parties were necessary for the suit.
Result: Writ petition dismissed, subject to the clarification that the petitioner is not precluded from raising any defence regarding his own responsibility.
For The Petitioner: Advs. Sri.K.S.Prenjith Kumar, Smt.Vaishnavi S.P. Nair
For The Respondent: Smt.Kavery S Thampi, Shri.Sarangadharan P., Sri.P.Yadhu Kumar, Sri.Arun Chandran, Smt.Amrita Arun, Shri.Harimohan, Smt.Aarabhi Gopan, Smt.Hana Karnolia Madona Cyril, Shri.Jyothikumar R., Sri.D.Ajithkumar (Sr.Gp)
JUDGMENT :
GOPINATH P., J.
The petitioner is the former Secretary of the Karthikapalli Taluk Aided Primary Teachers Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). The Bank filed ARC No.77 of 2024 before the 2nd respondent under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Act'), seeking an award for the recovery of Rs.89,85,296/- with 18% interest from the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply statement, inter alia contending that the members of the Managing Committee of the Bank at the relevant time were necessary parties to the proceedings before the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, proceedings under Section 65 of the 1965 Act had revealed that the Managing Committee members and the former Secretary of the Bank (one V. Padmajan) were responsible for causing loss to the Bank. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P1 plaint was filed without impleading these necessary parties, the petitioner filed I.A No. 1 of 2026 in ARC No. 77 of 2024 seeking to implead respondents 5 to 15 herein as additional respondents 4 to 14 in the ARC. However, by Ext.P5 order, the said application was dismissed holding that respondents 5 to 15 are not necessary parties for the adjudication of the dispute. This order of the 2nd respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that Rule 47(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1969 Rules’), indicates that the Committee of the Bank shall be primarily responsible for the maintenance and safety of all accounts, records, cash, and other assets of the Bank. It is pointed out that the said Rule further mandates that it shall be the duty of the Committee to ensure that the officers concerned discharge their functions and perform their duties as laid down in the Rules and the bye-laws. It is submitted that when there is such a statutory mandate, the Bank could not have initiated proceedings solely against the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who was working as a peon at the relevant time. It is submitted that the attempt of the Bank is to save the Managing Committee members by making it appear that the petitioner and the 4th respondent alone were responsible for causing the loss. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), to contend that the Court has the power to strike out or add parties. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Maniyappan T.V and another vs. Pattanakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. , 2020 (4) KHC 733 held, after referring to the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, that an Arbitrator under Section 69 of the 1969 Act has the power to add necessary parties to the proceedings pending before him. It is submitted that the decision of the Division Bench categorically holds that even if the plaintiff does not implead all necessary parties, it is open to the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings. It is submitted that vide Ext.P5 order, the Arbitrator has concluded that respondents 5 to 15 are not necessary parties and therefore the petitioner has also lost his right to demonstrate that the proceedings initiated by the Bank are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that in such circumstances, Ext.P5 order is liable to be set aside, and the matter has to be remanded to the Arbitrator to decide Ext.P4 application afresh, having regard to the principles under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC and the decision of this Court in Maniyappan T.V (supra).
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the Bank, as the plaintiff in the proceedings before the Arbitrator, is dominus litus and has the authority to decide as to who should be impleaded as a party to the proceeding
