RULE 8A  -  Power of Court to permit a person or body of persons to present opinion or to take part in the proceedings

It states that While trying a suit, the Court may if satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in any question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take part in the proceedings of the suit as the Court may specify.

This means that Rule 8A empowers the court to permit a person or body of persons interested in any question of law in issue in any suit to present his or its opinion before the court and to take part in the proceedings in the suit. Although it is the discretion of the court whether to allow such persons to present their opinion. Even if the parties have interest in the suit, but if the court is not satisfied , then the people interested would be able to join the proceeding.

 

RULE 9  -  Misjoinder and nonjoinder

  1. Rule 9 states that No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder 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 nonjoinder of a necessary party.]

Firstly it is necessary to understand the terms, Non-joinder and Misjoinder. Non-joinder  - A person who is necessary as a party to a case or a suit, but has not joined is called a non-joinder. While misjoinder -  when the parties join in a suit although when they are not supposed to join or they don’t have any interest in the suit still they join is called as misjoinder.

a.       The general rule is that a suit cannot be dismissed only on the ground of nonjoinder or misjoinder of the parties.

b.       Nor the decree passed by the competent court on merits will be set aside on the ground of misdescription of the defendant.

c.       However, this rule does not apply in the case of non-joinder of the parties of a necessary party.

d.       If the person is likely to be affected by the decree is not joined as a party in the suit or appeal, the suit or appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

e.       But in B.P. Rao v. State of A.P., all the affected persons had not joined as parties to the petition, and some of them only joined as parties, Here Supreme Court took the view that the interests of the persons who were not joined as parties were identical with those of the persons who were before the court and were sufficiently well presented and therefore, the petition was not dismissed on that ground, also it was held that order or decree under section 47 of the code can vary in appeal on the account of any misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, not affecting the jurisdiction or merits of the case.

RULE 10  -  Suit in name of wrong plaintiff

Rule 10 Sub rule (1) states that  Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.

a.       Rule 10(1) provides for the addition or substitution of the plaintiffs after the action is taken.

b.       If after the filing of the suit plaintiff discovers that he cannot get the relief he seeks, and he might get the relief only if he joins the other plaintiff, then he can make an application to the court for the addition or substitution of the plaintiff.

c.       The object of this provision is to save honest plaintiffs, believing bona fide in the maintainability of their claims being non-suited on a mere technical ground.

d.       The policy is to decide the real question in controversy between the parties bypassing the mere technical objection for defeating a just and honest claim by discouraging silly or unreasonable technicalities.

e.       Therefore, the provision has to be interpreted liberally so as to advance justice.

f.        There two conditions essential to bring the case within this sub-rule

 

a.       The suit is filed in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff by bona fide mistake , and

b.       The substitution or the addition of the plaintiff is necessary for the determination of the dispute.

Illustration:  C, the agent of A, under a bona fide mistake files a suit against B in his own name, now the court can substitute the name of A for that of the plaintiff C.

g.       Such amendment can be allowed by the court at nay stage of the suit or even at the appellate stage and upon such terms and conditions as it thinks just.

h.       No person can be added as a plaintiff without his consent.

 

Sub-rule (2) states that 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.

This sub-rule empowers the court to add any person as a party to the suit on either of the two grounds  -

a.       He must have joined as a plaintiff or a defendant, and is not so joined; or

b.       Without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be completely decided.

 

1.       The main object behind this provision is to bring before the court, at the same time, all the persons interested in the disputes so that all the disputes may be finally determined at the same time in the presence of all the parties without the delay, inconvenience and the expense of several actions and trials and inconclusive adjudications.

2.       This provision confers a wide discretion on the court to meet with every case of a defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record.

3.       Addition of parties is however a judicial discretion that is required to be exercised judiciously.

4.       In Anil Kumar v. Shivnath , while considering the order 1 rule10(2) , the supreme court observed that “ though the court may have power to strike out the name of the party  joined or add party either o application or without application of either party, the condition  precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of such party would be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the suit, the object behind the rule is to bring  on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any inconvenience, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings”.

5.       Thus, if a special statute makes a person a necessary party to the proceeding and also provides that the non-joinder will result in dismissal of the petition, the court cannot use the curative power of Order 1, Rule 10 as to avoid consequences of non-joinder of such party.

Sub-rule (3) states that  No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

No plaintiff or other friend or person can be added without his consent .

1.       The power to strike out or add an party to the suit may be exercised by the court at any stage of the proceeding.

2.       It may be either upon an application by the parties or even suo motu (on its own)

3.       Though the court has wide discretion in the matter of joinder of the necessary parties , it may be exercised in reasonable manner.

4.       The court cannot add a person as defendant when the plaintiff is opposed to such addition as he is the ‘dominus lites’.(master of the suit i.e. plaintiff).

5.       The plaintiff is the best judge of his own interest.

6.       It should be left to him to decide his opponent from whom he wants relief

7.       He cannot be compelled to fight against some other person whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not want to claim any relief.

8.       But there is exceptional, case if the court feels the necessity of a necessary party then court can bring a part to suit, as held is Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum.

Sub-rule (4) states that Where defendant added, plaint to be amended—Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant

It explains that if a new defendant is added may be by permission of the court, then if the court directs or tells the plaintiff to amend the plaint, then the plaintiff has to make changes in the plaint as a new defendant is added and the amended copies of the summons and of plaint are to be given to the new defendant and to the original defendant , if the court feels necessary .

Sub-rule (5)  -  Subject to the provisions of the [116]Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.

Suppose if a new defendant is added , then the proceeding regarding the same will begin only after the summons is served to the defendants.

RULE 10 A  -   Power of Court to request any pleader to address it—

The Court may, in its discretion, request any pleader to address it as to any interest which is likely to be affected by its decision on any matter in issue in any suit or proceeding, if the party having the interest which is likely to be so affected is not represented by any pleader.

Rule 10 A explains that it is the discretion of the court to request any  pleader to mention the interest which will be affected by the decision of the court on any matter in issue in any suit or proceeding and such discretion will be exercised by the court when the party whose interest is affecting is not properly represented by the pleader.

RULE 11  -  Conduct of suit

The Court may give the conduct of  [a suit] to such persons as it deems proper. It clearly states that the court has discretion to give or not to give the conduct of a suit to proper person.

RULE 12  -  Appearance of one of several plaintiffs or defendants for others

 (1) Where there are more plaintiffs than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by any other of them to appear, plead or act for such other in any proceeding; and in like manner, where there are more defendants than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by any other of them to appear, plead or act for such other in any proceeding.

(2) The authority shall be in writing signed by the party giving it and shall be filed in Court.

Here when there is appearance of one or more plaintiff or defendant on behalf of the other plaintiff and defendants, then the other person may authorise the person representing  and such representation must be authorised in writing and signed by the party authorising the person on their behalf and it is to be filed in the court.

RULE 13  -  Objections as to nonjoinder or misjoinder

All objections on the ground of non- joinder or misjoinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issue are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.

It simply states that all the objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties must be taken at the earliest opportunity, otherwise, the objections will considered to be waived . But, if the objection as to non-joinder of necessary party has been taken by the defendant at an earliest stage and if the plaintiff declines to add the necessary party, then the plaintiff afterwards will not be allowed in appeal to rectify the error by applying for amendment , as held in Naba Kumar v. Radha Shyam.