A necessary party must be joined in a civil suit for effective adjudication; belated motions may be dismissed.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH th ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6961 of 2024 M/S SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.

Versus ADINATH INCORPORATION A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Atul Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shivendra Pandey and Shri Sheikh Akram - Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2024 by which an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. by the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.2 before the trial Court for deleting his name from the array of parties, was dismissed.

2. In this case the undisputed fact is that the petitioner has been appearing through his independent counsel since the beginning of the trial before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is a contractor who received a contract from the Government. He subcontracted to the defendant No.1 in the civil suit. The defendant No.1 further subcontracted the work to the Signature Not Verified plaintiff before the trial Court who is the respondent herein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that plaintiff had no cause of action or relief to be claimed against the petitioner and therefore he should not have been made a defendant in the civil suit.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that the work being performed by him, though subcontracted to him by the defendant No.1, defendant No.1 himself got the contract from the petitioner herein and that is why the petitioner is a necessary party.

5. As regards any relief being claimed against the petitioner herein is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly answered in the negative.

6. Arguments on law forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that Sub - Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 provides that 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 effectively adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed dismissing the application only on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in moving the said application. Otherwise, he says that the order is perverse because it has failed to take into Signature Not Verified account that the trial Court ought to have examined as to how the petitioner was a necessary party and without his inclusion, just and proper order disposing of the civil suit would not have been filed. He has also referred to Order 1 Rule 13 of C.P.C. with regard to objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder of the parties and has argued that the objections of the grounds of non- joinder or misjoinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before the settlement unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that firstly the application was moved belatedly in the year 2024 while the petitioner has been participating the trial through his own independent counsel from the year 2011 itself. He further stated that the written statement in the suit has been filed conjointly by both the defendant No.1 and the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein had given the power of attorney to that defendant No.1 to do the needful. This aspec