Joinder of plaintiffs.
R.3. Who may be joined as defendants.
All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants 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 against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and
(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.]
STATE AMENDMENT
Bihar. In its application to the Schedule Areas in the State of Bihar the following proviso was inserted: Provided that in suits for declaration of title or for possession relating to immovable properties of a member of the Scheduled Tribes as specified in Part III to the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall also be joined as a defendant. (Bihar Scheduled Areas Reg 1 of 1969 s 3 and Sch of 8-2-1969).
(Order I Rule 3 of the Code provides in effect that two or more persons may be joined as defendants in one suit if the right to relief alleged to exist against each of them arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or of fact. If two or more persons are joined as defendants in one suit in a case not covered by Order I Rule 3 of the Code, the result is a misjoinder of defendants. )
Plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead unwanted and unnecessary parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties for deciding the dispute in the suit.
Canara Bank v. Mettalica Industries Ltd., AIR 1997 Bom 296
The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. A person may be added as a party-defendant to the suit though no relief may be claimed against him/her provided his/her presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the suit. Such a person is only a proper party as distinguished from a necessary party.
Anil Kumar Singh v. Shiv Nath Mishra ((1995) 3 SCC 147)