Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against Whom He Does Not Want To Fight: Supreme Court
🏛️ Principle: Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against Whom He Does Not Want To Fight
1. Meaning and Context
In civil litigation, sometimes disputes involve multiple parties.
Courts may suggest or order joinder of parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or to resolve all related issues in one suit.
However, the plaintiff’s choice of parties is protected, and he cannot be compelled to include persons against whom he does not wish to proceed.
Forcing addition of unnecessary parties is considered oppressive and an abuse of process of law.
2. Legal Basis
The principle flows from Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 which allows joinder of parties but does not mandate it if the plaintiff does not desire.
The courts exercise discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 (which deals with dropping or adding parties) but this discretion must not be exercised against the will of a genuine plaintiff.
The aim is to prevent multiplicity of suits but also respect the plaintiff’s autonomy to choose his adversaries.
3. Supreme Court Case Law
a) CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 27
Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot be forced to include a party who is not necessary for the adjudication of the claim or who the plaintiff does not want to sue.
The Court stated that joinder must be only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of suits and not for compelling a plaintiff to fight unwanted battles.
b) A.K. Khan & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1964) 3 SCR 731
The Court ruled that a party cannot be forced to sue a person with whom he does not desire to have litigation.
It emphasized the importance of respecting the plaintiff’s choice.
c) Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies (1968) 2 SCR 645
The Court observed that the courts should not compel a plaintiff to join parties unnecessarily as it may amount to harassment.
d) M.K. Verma v. Union of India (2001) 6 SCC 169
The Court reiterated that the joinder of parties should be for convenience and avoidance of multiplicity but not at the cost of plaintiff’s right to choose parties.
4. Principles Laid Down
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff’s autonomy | Plaintiff has the right to decide who to sue |
| Joinder of parties | Only for avoiding multiplicity of litigation |
| Court’s discretion | Cannot be used to oppress or force unwanted parties |
| Necessary vs. proper parties | Only parties necessary for adjudication can be joined |
| Abuse of process | Forcing addition can be abuse of legal process |
5. Practical Implications
Courts generally respect the plaintiff’s choice unless joinder is absolutely necessary for just adjudication.
Defendants or other parties may request joinder but courts will evaluate necessity and plaintiff’s bona fide objection.
Prevents forced litigation against unwilling parties.
Protects parties from unwarranted harassment and expenses.
6. Conclusion
The Supreme Court has consistently held that while joinder of parties is a tool to avoid multiplicity of suits, it cannot be used to force a plaintiff to litigate against persons he does not want to include in the suit. The plaintiff’s autonomy is a fundamental aspect of fair litigation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments