By the Court.—Heard Sri Om Prakash Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Smriti Kartikaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.4.2011. The order reads as follows :

“The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment made pursuant to the advertisement issued by the office of the District Panchayat, Kaushambi.

The petitioner has not placed on record the appointment orders and nor he has impleaded the appointed persons as respondents. No relief, therefore, can be granted to the petitioner.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

3. From the aforesaid it is clear that the writ petition has been dismissed on two grounds (a) non impleadment of necessary parties (b) non filing of the appointment order of the persons who have been appointed.

4. In our opinion, once it is found that the writ petition suffered from non impleadment of necessary parties then the writ petition should have been dismissed on that ground alone and all other observations are not required to be made.

5. We shall, therefore, address our self to the first issue with regard to the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of non impleadment of necessary parties. The provisions of Order I do not apply to writ proceedings, but principle in general of this provision are made applicable, as guidelines for the writ Court.

6. The legal principles applicable in the matter of impleadment of necessary parties in writ petition has to be regulated by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code by necessary implication, as there is no other statutory provision regulating the impleadment of parties in a writ petition. At least no other provision in the matter to implead of parties has been brought to the notice of the Court.

7. The joining of parties to the suit is regulated by Order I C.P.C. The provisions of Order I Rule-1 and Order I Rule-3 deal with the persons who may join as plaintiff and with those who may be impleaded as defendant respectively.

8. For our purposes what is relevant is Order I Rule-9 of C.P.C. which reads as follows :

“9. Mis-joinder and non-joinder.—No suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or 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:

Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.”

9. It will be seen that main provision of Order I Rule 9 specifically declares that no suit shall be defeated by the reasons of the non joinder or mis-joinder of parties and the Court may in every suit deal with the controversy so far as the rights and interest of the parties actually before it. But the proviso to the said Rules 9, provides that nothing in the said Rule shall apply to non joinder of necessary parties. Meaning thereby that the Court may not proceed with suit where a necessary party has not been impleaded. At this stage we may also refer to Order 1, Rule-10 Sub Clause-2 of C.P.C., which reads as follows :

“10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

10. From a simple reading of the same it is clear that the Court may at any stage of the proceeding either upon or without the application of the either parties and on such terms, as may appear to the Court, to be just, order