Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The court may dismiss the suit or strike out the party's claim if it finds that the claim has no reasonable cause or is an abuse of the court's process, even if the party was not originally connected ["Sobha Ram VS Ram Prasad - Allahabad"].
Legal Basis and Court Practice
Analysis and Conclusion- In cases where a party is not connected to the suit, the procedural course involves filing an application under Order 18 Rule 19(1) or similar provisions, requesting the court to strike out the claim or party's involvement. The court has broad discretion to dismiss or strike out claims that are frivolous, lack cause, or constitute abuse of process, regardless of whether the party was originally a formal party ["NADARAJAH LINGAM SINNADURAI & ORS vs DATO SRI DR SURESH RAJ LACHMANAN & ORS - High Court"].- There is no strict time limit for such applications, allowing parties or the court to act at any stage of the proceedings to ensure justice and efficiency ["NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD vs DATO SRI SURESH EMMANUEL ABISHEGAM & ORS - High Court"].- Overall, the court's primary concern is to prevent abuse and to dispose of cases efficiently, striking out claims or parties that are not properly connected or are otherwise unsustainable ["A.CHINNASAMY vs THE SUB DIVISIONAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - Madras"].
In civil litigation, ensuring that only relevant parties are involved is crucial for efficient adjudication. A common question arises: if a party is not connected in the suit in that case what is the procedure to strike out from the case? This issue often stems from misjoinder, where plaintiffs or defendants lack a direct link to the suit's subject matter. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), courts have robust powers to address this, primarily through Order I Rule 10(2). This post explores the procedure, judicial discretion, and practical insights, drawing from key precedents. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
If a party is improperly joined—meaning they are neither necessary nor proper for the suit—the court may strike out their name under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. This power is exercisable at any stage of the proceedings, either suo motu (on the court's own motion) or upon application by any party, guided by judicial discretion, reason, and fair play. Manju Gupta VS Daya Ram - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 690S. Mohammed Mirza Ismail VS Delhi Hall, a Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner M. Shahul Hameed - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1279Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer (2010)
Key points include:- Courts can remove plaintiffs or defendants without affecting the suit's merits.- The plaintiff is not dominus litis (master of the suit) and cannot retain unnecessary parties. S. Mohammed Mirza Ismail VS Delhi Hall, a Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner M. Shahul Hameed - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1279- Discretion must be exercised rationally, not whimsically, focusing on parties not essential for effective relief. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer (2010)
Order I Rule 10(2) explicitly states: 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... Manju Gupta VS Daya Ram - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 690
In Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the court clarified: The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. S. Mohammed Mirza Ismail VS Delhi Hall, a Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner M. Shahul Hameed - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1279Manju Gupta VS Daya Ram - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 690Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer (2010)
Distinguishing parties is key:- Necessary Party: One without whom no effective decree can pass; non-joinder may lead to dismissal. A ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Manju Gupta VS Daya Ram - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 690- Proper Party: Presence aids complete adjudication but is not essential.- Improperly Joined: Lacks direct/legal interest in the suit's questions. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer (2010)
Plaintiffs cannot array unconnected defendants merely at will: ...the contention... that the plaintiff being dominus-litis, he would add any number of defendants to the suit, even though they are not necessary parties is not legally sustainable. S. Mohammed Mirza Ismail VS Delhi Hall, a Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner M. Shahul Hameed - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1279
Courts exercise discretion judiciously: In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. S. Mohammed Mirza Ismail VS Delhi Hall, a Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner M. Shahul Hameed - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1279Manju Gupta VS Daya Ram - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 690Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer (2010)
This ensures fairness without prejudice to merits.
Striking out parties under Order I Rule 10 differs from:- Striking Pleadings (Order VI Rule 16): Targets defective content, not parties.- Striking Defenses: Seen in cases like maintenance disputes, where non-compliance leads to striking, but only after opportunities and explicit orders. For instance, courts avoid anticipatory striking: There can be no anticipatory or conditional order for striking out a defence... (from a Transfer of Property Act case). S. Rajesh Kumar VS C. Bakthavatchalam - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 528
In Malaysian contexts (analogous principles), Order 18 r 19 allows striking suits for abuse of process, e.g., refiling identical claims post-strike out without liberty. NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD vs DATO SRI SURESH EMMANUEL ABISHEGAM & ORSSAMA ASSAVAAKUL vs CHOO KAH HOE & ANOR
Res judicata in connected suits underscores finality: Non-appeal from one suit's decree bars challenges in others. Sonpal VS Board of Reveue U. P. at Allahabad - 2019 Supreme(All) 2458Kamlabai Suresh Khadse VS Tukaram Rajaram IngoleAvira Joseph VS Varghese Mathai - 2010 Supreme(Ker) 802
Other scenarios, like partition suits or strikes due to lawyer absences, highlight procedural fairness but don't override Order I Rule 10. SURENDRA SINGH VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (IInd), VARANASI - 2015 Supreme(All) 407
To strike out an unconnected party:- File a precise application citing Order I Rule 10(2), evidence of no nexus, and necessary/proper tests.- Request costs for delays caused by misjoinder.- Urge early issue-framing on joinder to prevent prolongation.- Support with precedents like Mumbai International Airport. S. Mohammed Mirza Ismail VS Delhi Hall, a Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner M. Shahul Hameed - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1279
Trial courts should proactively address joinder for streamlined proceedings.
Misjoinder can clutter suits, but CPC equips courts to rectify it efficiently. For tailored advice, engage a civil litigation expert. This overview draws from established Indian jurisprudence, promoting fair play in proceedings. Manju Gupta VS Daya Ram - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 690Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer (2010)
#CPCProcedure #CivilLaw #StrikeOutParty
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. ... made in Na.Ka.No.4204/2018/A3 under Section 145 of the Criminal Proceedure Code, restraining the Petitioners herein when the Civil Suit in O.S.No.78 of 2018 on the file of learned District Munsif's Court, Harur, Dharmapuri District ... Code, determined the rights of the parties dehors the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.78 of 2018, before the competent civil Court. ... is pending adjudication in the earliest point of time as e....
It is not the case of an objection to the attachment of a property by a third party under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Proceedure. ... Further, the court which was selling the debt was not a court constituted under the Civil Proceedure Code and was not authorised to exercise the powers laid down in Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code. ... In such a case, unless the unsucessful objector brings suit to obtain a declaratio....
By the said order, the learned trial Judge permitted the defendant in the said suit to make appearance and contest the case through an agent holding power of attorney. ... copy thereof/or, in the case of an agent carrying on a trade or business on behalf of a party, without a written authority, an affidavit stating the residence of his principal, the trade or business carried on by the agent on his behalf and the connection of the same with the subject matter of the suit ... It is not ....
I had already dismissed suit 805, 2019, after holding it academic with the determination of suit 45, 2020, to which D1 is not a party thereto, nor did he elect to intervene therein. D3 is not named nor cited as a party in the counterclaim in suit 805, 2019, as seen in L.215, pp 25-26/PDF pp 24-25. ... The Court did not make any final order in determining suit 45, 2020. At this juncture, I find this argument misleading as it was #H....
The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent No. 3 has filed a suit under Section 176 of the Act, which was numbered as Suit No. 146/7-8-13 (Vibhuti Narain v. Shyam Chandra) impleading Shyam Chandra and Surendra Singh as defendants. ... On 17.1.2014, due to lawyer’s strike, the Court proceeding did not commence and the date was fixed for 7.2.2014. On 7.2.2014, again the lawyers were on strike and 28.2.2014 was fixed. ... 6. ... On 17.1.2014, there was strike#HL....
Since the second suit has not been set down for trial, the defendant in the present case in our view can still apply to strike out the second suit on the ground of abuse of the process of the Court ." ... In this case, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ held: "[8] It is our view that O 18 r 19(1) of RHC 1980 does not specify a time limit during which a party may apply to the Court to strike out a pleading. ... Lorrain Esme Osman & Another #H....
I agree with the learned counsel for the Defendants contend that the said cases are not relevant to the present case. Unlike in those cases, in the present case, the Order to strike out did not expressly state that the First Suit was struck out with 'liberty to file afresh'. ... Consequently, the Court did not expressly make an Order to Strike Out with liberty to file afresh and the sealed Order to Strike Out also did not#....
Since the second suit has not been set down for trial, the defendant in the present case in our view can still apply to strike out the second suit on the ground of abuse of the process of the Court." ... In this case, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ held: "[8] It is our view that O 18 r 19(1) of RHC 1980 does not specify a time limit during which a party may apply to the Court to strike out a pleading. ... Lorrain Esme Osman & Another #HL_ST....
In the instance case, the subject matter of the suit is the payment of the sum of Rs.25,10,059/- which is an amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendants for the services rendered. ... It is only when the Court is unable to adjudicate that it is required to treat the suit as an ordinary suit. In the instant case, the relief is capable of being paid and the plaintiff is willing to do so for which the 1st defendant has no objection. ... However, the defendants did not come forward t....
The Limbs Of Order 18 Rule 19(1) That D4 Relies On [4] D4Co's application to strike out the suit is encl 22. ... [35] The pertinent proceedings in that case were: (1) TNB applied to strike out A and B's suit under O 18 r 19(1). (2) The High Court dismissed the application. TNB appealed to the Court of Appeal. ... [50] So, I consider where the justice of the case lies. I consider the balance of justice. [51] If D4Co's striking-out application is not allowed, D4C....
The question is what happens where no appeal is filed as in this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect of non filing of appeal as in this case from the decree in that it becomes final. "Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appear that where an appeal arising out of connected suit is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard and has to be dismissed. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law.
In the present case, what the learned Judge had done is to strike out the defence a month after the date of the order if a particular thing was not done. It is extremely undesirable that Courts should so bind themselves. There can be no anticipatory or conditional order for striking out a defence for the simple reason that the Court has got to consider the materials as they exist on the date when the order for striking out is passed. An order of that kind would preclude even the Court from taking into account the relevant circumstances on the date when the order is to becom....
Effect of non filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. “It appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed.
The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. "Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits, the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Effect of non-filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final.
The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Effect of non-filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final. “Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
