Parties accused of fraud, including vendors implicated in the challenged transactions, are necessary parties.

The petitioner challenged the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal’s order refusing to expunge respondent nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 from the original application.

The petitioner argued that those respondents were unnecessary parties and that respondent no. 8 had died; a connected application sought the same relief in the writ petition.

The Tribunal had found that the original application alleged fraud involving the respondents sought to be removed.

The petitioner relied on Nak Engineering Company Private Limited v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Others, (2026) 3 SCC 631, and the respondents opposed expunction.

1. Whether respondent nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 could be expunged from the original application as unnecessary parties, despite allegations of fraud against them.

2. Whether the alleged death of respondent no. 8 warranted expunction in the application as presented.

Under the dominus litis principle, a plaintiff cannot ordinarily be compelled to add a defendant who is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

As explained in Nak Engineering Company Private Limited v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Others, (2026) 3 SCC 631, that principle applies only where the person sought to be added is neither necessary nor proper.

A person whose interests are directly affected by the allegations and relief in the proceedings may be a necessary party.

The Court found that the original application repeatedly alleged involvement in fraud by respondent nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10, even though the prayer portion did not specifically seek relief against them.

Further, those respondents were vendors to respondent nos. 5, 7, 9 and 11, whose purchases were central to the fraud allegations; the allegations therefore directly affected the vendors, making them necessary parties.

The dominus litis principle did not assist the petitioner because it does not permit exclusion of necessary parties.

The expunction application was based on the assertion that the respondents were unnecessary, not on respondent no. 8’s alleged death; the petitioner could instead seek appropriate relief before the Tribunal by providing prima facie particulars of the death and its circumstances.

It also dismissed CAN 1 of 2026 as having lost relevance, while clarifying that the merits of the original application were not decided and that the petitioner could apply to the Tribunal regarding any respondent’s death.

The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the original application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight months after service was completed on all respondents.

No order as to costs was made.