Parties to suits, joinder of causes of action and multifariousness (Orders I and II)

1. Joinder of plaintiffs: Order I rule 1

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 them, jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if they brought separate suits, a common question of law or fact would arise. Both conditions must be met. Example: passengers injured in the same bus accident may sue the operator together.

Where joinder may embarrass or delay the trial, the court may put the plaintiffs to their election or order separate trials (rule 2).

2. Joinder of defendants: Order I rules 3 to 7

• Rule 3. All persons may be joined as defendants where any right to relief arising out of the same act or transaction or series is alleged to exist against them, jointly, severally or in the alternative, and a common question of law or fact would arise in separate suits. Rule 3A allows separate trials.
• Rule 4. Judgment may be given for or against one or more of joint parties according to their entitlement or liability.
• Rule 5. A defendant need not be interested in all the relief claimed.
• Rule 6. Persons severally, or jointly and severally, liable on one contract (including parties to bills of exchange, hundis and promissory notes) may be joined at the plaintiff’s option.
• Rule 7. Where the plaintiff is in doubt from whom he is entitled to redress, he may join two or more defendants so that the question of who is liable is decided between all.

3. Necessary and proper parties

A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed at all; a proper party is one whose presence is not essential but enables the court to adjudicate more effectually and completely. In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, 2005 INSC 228, (2005) 6 SCC 733, the Court laid down two tests for a necessary party: there must be a right to some relief against him in respect of the controversy, and no effective decree can be passed in his absence. It held that in a suit for specific performance between the vendor and the purchaser, a third party claiming an independent title adverse to the vendor is neither a necessary nor a proper party, since the scope of the suit cannot be enlarged into a title dispute.

In Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2010 INSC 362, (2010) 7 SCC 417, the Court explained that the plaintiff is dominus litis and is not ordinarily compelled to litigate against a person he does not wish to sue; the court’s discretion under rule 10(2) to add a proper party is to be exercised judicially, to avoid multiplicity and to settle all the questions involved.

4. Misjoinder and non-joinder: rules 9, 10 and 13

• Rule 9. No suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court may deal with the matter so far as regards the parties actually before it. Proviso (1976): this does not apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. A suit without a necessary party fails unless the party is added.
• Rule 10(1). A suit filed in the name of the wrong plaintiff through a bona fide mistake may be cured by substituting or adding the right plaintiff.
• Rule 10(2). The court may at any stage, with or without an application, strike out a party improperly joined, and add any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary to enable it to adjudicate effectually and completely. No one is added as plaintiff without his consent (rule 10(3)).
• Rules 10(4) and (5). On adding a defendant, the plaint is amended and served on him; as against him the suit is deemed to begin only on service of summons, subject to section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• Rule 13. Objections of misjoinder or non-joinder must be taken at the earliest opportunity, at or before settlement of issues, or they are deemed waived, unless the ground arose later.

In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, 1958 INSC 69, AIR 1958 SC 886, the Court held that the addition of parties under rule 10 is a matter of judicial discretion, and that in a suit for a declaration of status a person may be added if he has a direct interest in the declaration sought.

5. Representative suits: rule 8

Where numerous persons have the same interest in one suit, one or more of them may, with the permission of the court, sue or be sued, or defend, on behalf of all, or the court may direct that they do so (rule 8(1)). The court must give notice to all persons interested, at the plaintiff’s expense, by personal service or public advertisement (rule 8(2)). Any of them may apply to be made a party (rule 8(3)). No part of the claim may be abandoned, and no withdrawal or compromise recorded, without notice to all (rule 8(4)). The decree binds everyone on whose behalf the suit was brought or defended (rule 8(6)), which links to Explanation VI to section 11. Under the Explanation, the persons need not have the same cause of action; the same interest is enough. Typical cases: villagers asserting a right of way, members of a community claiming a burial ground, or a suit against office-bearers of an unregistered body.

6. Frame of suit: Order II

• Rule 1. Every suit shall as far as practicable be framed to afford ground for final decision on the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation.
• Rule 2(1). Every suit shall include the whole claim the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, though he may relinquish part to bring it within a court’s jurisdiction.
• Rule 2(2). A portion omitted or intentionally relinquished cannot be sued for afterwards.
• Rule 2(3). A person entitled to more than one relief on the same cause of action who omits one, without leave of the court, cannot later sue for it.
• The illustration: A lets a house to B at a yearly rent; rent for 1905, 1906 and 1907 is unpaid; A sues in 1908 only for 1906; he cannot afterwards sue for 1905 or 1907.

The bar applies only where the second suit is on the same cause of action. In Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, 1964 INSC 129, AIR 1964 SC 1810, the Court held that the defendant pleading the bar must produce the earlier plaint to show the identity of the cause of action, the reliefs available and the omission. In Virgo Industries (Eng.) Pvt. Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2012 INSC 383, (2013) 1 SCC 625, a party that had sued only for injunctions, when the relief of specific performance was already available, was barred from later suing for specific performance without having obtained leave.

7. Joinder of causes of action and multifariousness

• Rule 3. A plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant or defendants jointly; and plaintiffs jointly interested in causes of action against the same defendant or defendants jointly may unite them. Jurisdiction then depends on the aggregate value (rule 3(2)).
• Rule 4. With a suit for recovery of immovable property, only claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent, damages for breach of the contract under which the property is held, and claims on the same cause of action may be joined, unless the court grants leave.
• Rule 5. Claims by or against an executor, administrator or heir as such are not joined with personal claims unless they relate to the estate.
• Rule 6. The court may order separate trials where joinder of causes may embarrass or delay.
• Rule 7. Objections of misjoinder of causes of action must be taken at the earliest opportunity or are deemed waived.

Multifariousness is the joinder in one suit of distinct causes of action against different defendants, so that some defendants are dragged into litigation that has nothing to do with them. It combines misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action. Order II rule 3 allows several causes only against the same defendant or defendants jointly; Order I rule 3 allows several defendants only where the claims arise from the same transaction with a common question. A suit that satisfies neither is multifarious. The defect is procedural: under Order I rule 9 and Order II rule 7 it does not defeat the suit; the court may order separate trials or require the plaintiff to elect, and the objection is waived if not taken in time. Section 99 also forbids reversal of a decree in appeal on account of misjoinder of parties or causes of action not affecting the merits or jurisdiction.

8. Problem

P sues D1 for rent of a shop and, in the same suit, D2 for price of goods sold to D2 at a different time. D2 objects for the first time in appeal. Advise.

Issue. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and whether the objection can be taken in appeal.

Law. Order I rule 3 (same transaction and common question needed to join defendants); Order II rule 3 (several causes may be joined only against the same defendants jointly); Order I rule 13 and Order II rule 7 (objections waived if not taken early); section 99 (no reversal for misjoinder not affecting the merits).

Application. The claims against D1 and D2 arise from different transactions with no common question, and they are not jointly liable. The suit is multifarious. But D2 did not object at or before the settlement of issues, so the objection is deemed waived, and the decree cannot be reversed on that ground unless it affected the merits or jurisdiction.

Conclusion. Had D2 objected in time, the trial court would have ordered separate trials or put P to his election. Raised for the first time in appeal, the objection fails.

How this is examined

As short notes: “Joinder of parties” (January 2026) and “Representative suit” (January 2025). Misjoinder and non-joinder, Order II rule 2 and multifariousness are the other likely notes. For “Joinder of parties”, give rules 1 and 3 with the two conditions, necessary and proper parties with Kasturi, rule 9 and its proviso, and rule 10(2).