Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Parties to the Suit (Order I Rules 1 – 3)
The term suit has not been defined in the Code. In Pandurang Ramchandra v. Shantibai Ramchandra, AIR 1989 SC 2240, the Supreme Court held that “suit” means a civil proceedings instituted by the presentation of a plaint. According to Section 2(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 ‘Suit’ does not include an appeal or an application. ‘Parties’ is one of the essential of the suit. There must be at least two parties in every suit, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant. However, there may be more than one plaintiff, and defendant. All particulars of the parties such as name, residence, father’s name, age, etc. which are necessary to identify the parties, must be stated in the plaint. In the case of more than one party, all of their names have to be mentioned in the plaint according to their pleadings. Order-I of the Code deals with the parties to the suit. It also deals with the joinder, misjoinder, non-joinder of parties, addition, deletion of parties and also representative suits.
If the cause of action arises in favour of or against multiple persons then the question of joinder of plaintiff and defendant arises. If the act is done by a single individual against a single individual then the question of joinder of parties does not arise. Here, we essentially deal with joinder of plaintiffs and defendants. The question of joinder of parties is a matter of procedure and not of substantive rights. The primary object of joinder of parties is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the disputes relating to the subject matter so that dispute may be determined in their presence on merits at the same time without any protraction and to ensure that all suits are decided finally and conclusively. The provisions of [O.I R.1] state as to who may be joined as plaintiffs in a suit. The provisions of [O.I R.3] state as to who may be joined as defendants in a suit.
Who may be joined as Plaintiffs in a suit?
Order I Rule 1 in the Code deals with this question and reads as follows:
Who may be joined as plaintiffs?
All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where—
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and
(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
This rule simply seeks to bring all those persons who have the right to relief in respect of any specific act either jointly or severally or alternatively in one suit who if brings separate suit there will be common question of fact or law would arise in any such suit. For Example: Where A assaults B, B may sue A for tort, as individually affects him. Thus in this case the question of joinder does not arise. The question of joinder of parties arises only when an act is done by two or more persons or it affects two or more persons. Thus, if A assaults B and C, or A and B assaults C or A and B assaults C and D, the question of joinder of parties arises.
In Bullock v. London General Omnibus Co., (1907) 1 KB 264 case, the Court observed that Order 1 deals with the joinder of parties, and to a certain extent, with the joinder of causes of action.
In Stround v. Lawson (1898) QB 44 case, the Court held that both the conditions specified in Order I Rue 1 must be fulfilled to enable two or more persons to join plaintiffs in one suit.
In the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v. George Gill & Sons, (1899) 1 Ch 55 case, ‘A’ publishes a series of book under the title Oxford and Cambridge Publication so as to induce the belief that books are the publication of Oxford and Cambridge University or either of them. The court held that the two universities may join as plaintiff’s in one suit to restrain A from using the title, because the publication and belief induced are common questions of fact arising out of the same series of transaction. Thus both the conditions of the Order I Rule 1 are satisfied.
- The right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction.
- Common question of law or fact will arise in such a case.
In Krishna v. Narsingh Rao, AIR 1973 Bom 358 case, the Court held that only pre-condition arise as to join in one suit as a plaintiffs if the common question of law or fact arose between the plaintiffs.
Power of Court to Order Separate Trials:
O.I R.2 deals with the power of Court to order separate trials and reads as:
Power of Court to order separate trials –
Where it appears to the Court that any joinder of plaintiffs may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit, the Court may put the plaintiffs to their election or Order separate trials or make such other Order as may be expedient.
This rule refers to a suit brought by several plaintiffs, in respect of the same act or transaction, but causes of action are so distinct that it is not convenient to dispose them at one trial. In case the Court finds that any joinder of plaintiffs may embarrass or delay the trial in the suit, the court may allow the plaintiffs to elect either to continue or seek separate trials or may itself suo motu order separate trials or may even make such order as may be expedient.
Who will be joined as Defendants?
Order I Rule 3 in the Code deals with this question and reads as follows:
Who may be joined as defendants
All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where—
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and
(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.
The test on which two or more persons are joined as defendants under O.I R.3 is same as, when two or more persons have joined as plaintiffs under O.I R.1. When two or more defendants are joined together and the test given under Rule 3 does not satisfy, then the joinder of such defendants and their respective cause of actions, is known as multifariousness of suit.
The plaintiff is dominus litis having domain in suit. He has a right and prerogative to choose and implead in a suit as the defendant, the person against whom he seeks relief. The condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added would be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
In Canara Bank v. Mettalica Industries Ltd., AIR 1997 Bom 296 case, the Court held that the plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled and forced to implead unwanted and unnecessary parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties for deciding the dispute in the suit.
In State Bank of India v. Krishna Pottery Udyog Ass, AIR 1994 HP 90 case, the Court held that in order that a party may be added as a defendant in the suit, the party should have a legal interest in the subject matter of litigation, i.e. legal interest not as distinguished from an equitable interest, but an interest which law recognizes.
A person who is brought on record as a defendant has all the rights of a defendant under the law and is entitled to put forward his defences to the suit.
Conclusion:
‘Parties’ is one of the essential of the suit. There must be at least two parties in every suit, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant. However, there may be more than one plaintiff, and defendant. Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the parties to the suit. The provisions of [O.I R.1] state as to who may be joined as plaintiffs in a suit. The provisions of [O.I R.3] state as to who may be joined as defendants in a suit. This rule simply seeks to bring all those persons who have the right to relief in respect of any specific act either jointly or severally or alternatively in one suit who if brings separate suit there will be common question of fact or law would arise in any such suit.
If the cause of action arises in favour of or against multiple persons then the question of joinder of plaintiff and defendant arises. If the act is done by a single individual against a single individual then the question of joinder of parties does not arise. The primary object of joinder of parties is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the disputes relating to the subject matter so that dispute may be determined in their presence on merits at the same time without any protraction and to ensure that all suits are decided finally and conclusively.