Non-Joinder vs Mis-Joinder: CPC Explained

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 51703

non-jointer of the necessary parties. ... This Court holds that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of arbitration clause in the partnership deed and for mis-jointer or non-jointer of the parties, in view of Order I Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. ... The learned senior counsel further contended that, with regard to the ground of mis-jointer#HL_END....

Madras

(ii) The Plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of mis-jointer and non-jointer of the necessary parties. ... The learned senior counsel further contended that, with regard to the ground of mis-jointer and non-jointer of parties, M/s Shri Anugrahaa Foundations, which the Respondent/Plaintiff seeks to dissolve, is not ... This....

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 37083

He stated that the other grounds raised by the petitioner is mis-description of properties, non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties are beyond the scope of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, 1908. Non-filing of the certificate are beyond the scope of the rejection of plaint. ... An application is filed before the trial Court for rejection of plaint on several grounds i.e., barred by limitation, ....

2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1414

Rule 13 mandates that: "all objection on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen and any such objections ... The general rule of Procedure in Rule 9 is subject to the proviso thereto which speaks that such general rules shall not ....

2024 0 Supreme(MP) 488

Babu Appanna, I.L.R. 1940 Bom. 299 (F.B.); and it is settled law that a mis-joinder or a nonjoinder of parties is a formal defect within the meaning of this rule, if by reason of such mis-joinder or non-joinder, the suit must fail: see R. Watson and Co. v. ... This Court in the said decision held that the expression ‘formal defect’ must be given a wide liberal #HL_START....

In my opinion sections 17 and 22 of the Code are intended to do away with all technical objections on the score of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties unless they are taken in due time and for good reason. ... Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that no action shall be defeated by reason of the non -joinder of parties. Cur. adv. vult. September 22, 1916. SHAW A.C.J. ....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (O 15, R 6). ... (2) To this end, no action will be defeated by reason of mere mis-joinder or non-joinder of any party which is capable of being remedied and is no defence. (See Abonloff v. Oppenheimer [1882] 30 WR 430). ... [12] I find that in this case there was no delay by the Plaintiff in filing the said joinder application. .....

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15673

or mis-joinder of parties should be taken at the earliest opportunity or at least at the time of settlement of issues or before such settlement and in the absence of such objection raised at the earliest opportunity, it must be deemed that the non-joinder of a party had been waived.” ... The Appellants /defendants have further submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary ....

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3616

As per Order I Rule 13, unless and until the issue relating to mis-joinder or non- joinder of parties is raised before the settlement of issues, the same cannot be considered and it should be deemed to have been waived. ... The trial Court has further found that it is not necessary to reject the plaint on the sole ground of mis-joinder or non- joinder ....

2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 9046

The proposed issue no.3 which is pressed by learned advocate for the petitioner to be framed this wise that, whether the suit suffers from the principle of mis-joinder or non-joinder of the party? ... Having heard the learned advocate for the parties, at the outset, what can be considered that the defendant has raised defence about the mis-joinder of party and non-jonid....

2024 0 Supreme(MP) 488

3. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit. The expression ‘formal defect’ must be given a wide and liberal meaning: See Ramrao Bhagwantrao v. Babu Appanna, I.L.R. 1940 Bom. 299 (F.B.); 378. In the ....

2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 736

(c) Non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. (c) Non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. (b) Whether the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or not? (e) Assignment of right by the plaintiff in favour of 3rd party. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances on record, non-maintainability of suit on the ground of bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be appreciated.

2012 0 Supreme(Del) 1980

(b) Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors., (1992) 2 SCR 1, in which case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the touchstone for determining the question of who is a necessary party or a proper party is Order I Rule 10 CPC, and further held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. Unless it is proved by the Plaintiff that the goods had not been delivered to the importer, the suit could not proceed against the Defendant....

2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 308

As regards the contention that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.23 of 1984 is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action, learned counsel pointed out that even assuming it to be so, that is not a ground to dismiss the suit. There is a distinction between non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The suit may be bad for non-impleadment of necessary parties.

2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 669

2nd respondent and the non impleading of ARCIL were pointed out in order to contend that there is mis-joinder as well as non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that, the acquisition of debts of the petitioner company was done after obtaining sanction from the 3rd respondent, the Reserve Bank of India. Copy of the request made by the 1st respondent in this regard and the sanction issued by the 3rd respondent are produced along with the counter affidavit of t....