Parties lacking pleaded cause of action, relief, or necessary presence may be struck out under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against official revenue authorities and three private respondents concerning proceedings relating to inheritance mutations and possession of land.

The private respondents filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, contending that no cause of action or relief was disclosed against them.

Although the Trial Court declined to reject the plaint in part, it invoked Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and struck out the names of the private respondents on the ground that they were neither necessary nor proper parties, as no cause of action or relief was pleaded against them.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the private respondents had initiated or influenced the revenue proceedings and were therefore properly joined as defendants.

The pleadings disclosed that the principal grievance in the suit was against the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar, who were proceeding pursuant to directions of the Divisional Commissioner.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in striking out the names of the private respondents under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on the ground that they were improperly joined?

Whether the absence of any specific relief or pleaded cause of action against the private respondents rendered their presence unnecessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the suit?

Whether the Trial Court’s exercise of power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC warranted interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which empowers a court, at any stage of the proceedings, to strike out the name of a party improperly joined and to add a person whose presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit.

A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be made, whereas a proper party is one whose presence enables a complete and final adjudication, even if no specific relief is claimed against that person.

The Court also considered Order VII Rule 11 CPC and relied on Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Dutt & Co., 1936 SCC OnLine Lah 337, and the Supreme Court decision reported at (2018) 11 SCC 780, for the principle that rejection of a plaint in part is generally impermissible.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and is not to be exercised absent perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.

The Court held that the Trial Court correctly distinguished between rejecting the plaint in part under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and removing improperly joined parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

On examination of the plaint, the Court found that no cause of action had been pleaded against the private respondents and that no relief had been sought against them.

The substantive grievance concerned the conduct of the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar in the revenue proceedings, and those proceedings could be effectively adjudicated in the absence of the private respondents.

Their alleged role in initiating or influencing the revenue proceedings did not, by itself, make them necessary or proper parties when the plaint disclosed no actionable claim against them.

Accordingly, their continued presence was unnecessary, and the Trial Court’s order did not suffer from illegality or perversity warranting Article 227 interference.

It upheld the Trial Court’s order deleting the private respondents from the array of defendants under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, holding that neither a cause of action nor any relief had been pleaded against them and that their presence was not required for complete adjudication of the suit.

The petition under Article 227 was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous application was also dismissed, and any subsisting interim directions were vacated.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the Trial Court.