Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. In CPC, Order I Rule 9 provides for the consequence of non-joinder of the parties as per which the impleadment of same is a mandate and Order I Rule 10 of the CPC provides for the powers of a Court to direct striking out or impleading of a party if necessary. In Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610, while reiterating the distinction between a necessary party, proper party and pro forma party, the following was observed:

"...38. In Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht [(2010) 12 SCC 204 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 208 : AIR 2010 SC 2613] this Court while dealing 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 observed thus : (SCC pp. 207-08, paras 9-10) "9. ... in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue [AIR 1963 SC 786] , wherein the Court has explained the distinction between necessary party, proper party and pro forma 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. More so, proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called „CPC‟) provides that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. 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. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1965 SC 1153] , Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot [(1974) 2 SCC 706 : AIR 1974 SC 2105] and Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT [(1987) 1 SCC 5 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 19 :