28 Supreme Court Cases on Non-joinder of Necessary Parties

Case Laws on Non-joinder of a Necessary Party

1. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional Member Boardof Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786

A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in this proceeding.

2. Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India (2012) 7 SCC 610

Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, they were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant.

3. Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129

The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority.

4. Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204

The Apex Court deals with the concept of necessary parties and the effect of non-impleadment of such a party in the matter when the selection process is assailed.

5. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1965 SC 786

The Court has explained the distinction between necessary party, proper party and proforma party and further held that if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153

More so, proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal.

7. Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706

Undoubtedly, provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC but the principles enshrined therein are applicable.

8. Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251

If a person challenges the selection process, successful candidates or at least some of them are necessary parties.

9. Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768

The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly right in holding that in absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording opportunity of hearing to them, their selection could not be set aside.

10. Asstt. G.M State Bank of India v. Radhey Shyam Pandey, 2015 (3) SCALE 39

Whether a tribunal is a necessary party.

11. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233

Concept of a tribunal being a necessary party

12. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R. Siddhantti, (1974) 4 SCC 335

Natural justice is not an unruly horse. Its applicability has to be adjudged regard being had to the effect and impact of the order and the person who claims to be affected; and that is where the concept of necessary party become significant.

13. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 251

Non-impleadment of the necessary party was fatal to the writ petition.

14. A. Janardhana v. Union of India, (1983) 3 SCC 601

Ultimately did not accept the submission that the writ petition was not maintainable because of non-impleadment of the necessary party.