Misjoinder

Misjoinder arises when a plaintiff improperly joins parties or causes of action in a suit without meeting the conditions for joinder set out in CPC Order I Rules 1 and 3, or Order II Rule 3. For example: joining two defendants in a suit where the right to relief against each arises from entirely separate and unrelated transactions (not the same transaction or series of transactions), or joining two entirely unrelated claims against the same defendant in a single plaint when the conditions for joinder of causes of action are not met.

Misjoinder is NOT fatal to the suit: Order I Rule 9 of the CPC expressly provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. The court's remedy is not to dismiss the suit but to: (1) strike out the improperly joined party; (2) sever the misjoined causes of action; or (3) make appropriate orders regarding further proceedings. The objective is to do justice to the parties actually before the court rather than to defeat a suit on a technicality.

Misjoinder vs non-joinder: misjoinder is the improper inclusion of parties or causes that should not have been included. Non-joinder is the failure to include parties who should have been included. Both are curable procedural defects under Order I Rule 9. However, in the case of non-joinder of a necessary party (without whom the suit cannot be decided), the court may direct that the suit cannot proceed until the necessary party is added — failure to add a necessary party can be more serious than misjoinder, particularly in family, partition, and company disputes.

For advocates, misjoinder and non-joinder issues arise in: (1) objections by defendants — raising misjoinder of parties or causes in the written statement; (2) applications under Order I Rule 10 — to add a party who is a necessary party; (3) Order VII Rule 11 — a plaint may be rejected if it is fundamentally defective, but misjoinder alone is not a ground for rejection; (4) Separating trials — in complex multi-party litigation, the court may separate issues for trial; and (5) in arbitration — misjoinder issues in multi-party arbitration are common and governed by the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat.