Order 1 Rule 3 CPC: joinder of Defendant in a Suit

Table of Contents

ntroduction

Order 1 Rule 3 CPC, related to the joinder of the defendants in a suit. This provision deals with the joining of parties as defendants in a suit, and who’s entitled to join as defendants. Order 1 Rule 3, describes the conditions where multiple defendants can be included in a single suit. This rule aims to ensure the resolution of real disputes with judicial efficiency. When the parties’ involvement comes out to the same transaction, act, and raising of a common question of law and fact, in that situation, the court can allow them to join as defendants in a suit.

In this article, we explore the meaning of CPC Oder 1 Rule 3, conditions for the joinder of defendants, and understanding with examples and illustrations.

What does Oder 1 Rule 3 of CPC say?

Order 1 Rule 3 of CPC explains that if certain conditions are met, multiple defendants can be joined in a suit. This allows for the prevention of a multiplicity of proceedings in the same subject matter.

Text of Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC

The rule reads as follows:

“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.”[1].

This means that multiple defendants can be included in a single lawsuit when:

The claim arises from the same act, transaction, or series of transactions.
When there is a common question of law or fact involved.

What is the purpose of Order 1 Rule 3 CPC?

This provision aims to prevent unnecessary litigation by consolidating suits using legal mechanisms. Oder 1 Rule 3 of CPC, enables the court to order to join multiple defendants in a single suit proceeding. This rule also ensures:

The court can handle legal disputes in an effective manner.
it avoids conflict in a judgment from a separate suit.
It saves time and litigation costs for the suit parties.

What are the conditions for the joinder of defendants in a suit?

There are certain conditions are required to satisfy a valid joinder of the defendant under this rule, these are listed below:

The same cause of action

This is a crucial condition that must be met, the defendants must be involved in the same act, and transactions in a similar manner. If the cause of action differs among defendants they cannot be ordered to join in a single suit.

Common Question of Law and Fact

This is also a significant condition of this provision: The questions of law and fact should be common for all defendants. If they are different, the legal issues between parties cannot be resolved effectively.

Avoiding multiplicity of proceedings:

The main purpose of this rule is to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings, as litigations related to the same subject matter. That may lead to conflict in judgment and misuse of the legal system.

Illustrations and examples of joinder of Defendants:

suppose, the plaintiff makes a contract with other parties and breaches the agreement terms with the same intent, in that situation all other parties can be joined as defendants under the provision of CPC Order 1 Rule 3.
If some persons come together and cause cheating or harm to the plaintiff, such as defamation or fraud. In that situation, the cause of action is treated in the same manner and the plaintiff can file a suit all of them in a single suit.

Case laws:

Some court interpretations can help understand this concept in an easy way, which is listed below:

(1) In P.B. Bose, Appellant v. M.R.N. Chettyar Firm and Anr (AIR 1938 RANGOON 185), the Rangoon High Court held that a decree for damages for breach of contract against one defendant and a decree for damages in tort against another defendant in respect of damages arising out of the same transaction can be passed in the same action. Defendants against whom damage is claimed on these two causes of action can be joined in the same suit. O. 1, R. 3 covers such a case and there is no misjoinder of defendants. [2].

(2) In N.E.S.P.A. Chettyar Firm vs. Letchmanan Konan and Ors. ( AIR 1936 RANGOON 241), the Rangoon Hugh Court held, Where in a suit for recovery of possession of land, the defendant claims to be in possession of the land as a tenant of another person, such person may be a proper party to the suit but his predecessor-in-title can never be a proper party to the suit and an order directing him to be impleaded in a suit is wrong.[3].

(3) In Kanhaiyalal vs Keshodas (AIR 1961 MADHYA PRADESH 46), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed the suit for eviction by the purchaser of premises against two separate tenants – The suit held bad for multifariousness.- Where the plaintiff purchased the suit house in which two defendants were residing as tenants separately and brought a suit for eviction against both the defendants claiming different reliefs against the two defendants: Held that O. 1, R. 3 could not be availed of by the plaintiff and the suit was bad for multifariousness.[4].

Consequences of misjoinder of defendants:

If the defendants are not joined in a proper way in a suit, it can result in the following manner:

The defendant can raise the objection:

The defendant can file an application to remove them and challenge the inclusion in a suit.

Striking out of parties:

The court has the power to pass the order to remove defendants under the provision of the CPC Order 1 Rule 10 if they are added as misjoined in a suit.

Dismissal of the suit:

In some cases, the court can dismiss the suit, due to improper joinder of the party, if it results in injustice for the defendants. In Chandra Nath Sarma and Ors. vs. Gunaram Kalita (AIR 1949 ASSAM 21), the Assam High Court observed that, Where in a case there is no question of any legal character involved but all that the plaintiff seeks is to ask the Court to declare that the action of the revenue authorities in settling the land in half and hall upon the plaintiff and the defendant was wrong and to compel them to settle it upon the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s cause of action is against the Government and not against the defendant and the suit against the defendant and not against the Government would not lie and would be dismissed.[5].

Difference between Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC

The provisions of Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC look like the same things, but there is a difference between them. Oder 1 Rule 3 allows the court to include multiple defendants in a single proceeding, in contrast, Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, allows the court to an order to add or remove parties in the suit. The aim of these two Rules is to ensure that only relevant parties must be involved in suit proceedings.[6].

Conclusion

CPC Order 1 Rule 3 plays a significant role in civil litigation. This Rule is related to adding defendants together especially when they are associated with the common cause of action and similar questions of law and fact. It aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings when the cause of action, subject matter and question of law and fact arise with the same persons. This enables the court to reduce the unnecessary burden of litigation and ensure the judicial proceedings run correctly. It helps the court and litigants save time and costs.

Reference

(1) Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC.

(2) P.B. Bose, Appellant v. M.R.N. Chettyar Firm and Anr (AIR 1938 RANGOON 185).

(3) N.E.S.P.A. Chettyar Firm vs. Letchmanan Konan and Ors. ( AIR 1936 RANGOON 241).

(4) Kanhaiyalal vs Keshodas (AIR 1961 MADHYA PRADESH 46).

(5) Chandra Nath Sarma and Ors. vs. Gunaram Kalita (AIR 1949 ASSAM 21).

(6) Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC