Section 79. Suits by or against Government.
Section 80. Notice.
O1 R9 Misjoinder and nonjoinder
O1 R10 Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.
O27 R1. Suits by or against Government.
Judgments on "State is a necessary party"
10. Suit in name of wrong
plaintiff.—(1) 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 through 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.
(2) 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 joinded, 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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
(5) Subject to the
provisions of the 1Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (XV 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.
Note: 1. See now the
Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), s. 21.
Judgment:
(a) In Sangamesh Printing Press V. Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board (1999) 6 SCC 44, the State was not impleaded as a party before the Trial Court in a money recovery suit. The same was dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party. During appeal, an application was made under O. 1 R. 10 praying for impleadment of the State, however the High Court decided the matter on merits without considering the same. The Supreme Court observed as under: “Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have decided the appellant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and, thereafter, proceeded to hear the appeal in question. Not having disposed of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore Regular First Appeal No 29 of 1987 to its file. The High Court should first deal with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which is pending before it and then proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.”
Section 79. Suits by or against Government.
Section 80. Notice.
O1 R9 Misjoinder and nonjoinder
O1 R10 Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.
O27 R1. Suits by or against Government.
Judgments on "State is a necessary party"
Please
share and follow this blog for more such law related articles.
Reference:
http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment