According to Rule 10 of Order 1, in the event of expulsion of a party, the name of the plaintiff or defendant who has inadmissible joined the party may be deleted and the case may be continued as usual. In Ramdhan Puri v. Chaudhury Lachmi Narain,[5] it was held that once the parties and the grounds have been included in the application, they do not have an absolute right to have them expunged, but that it is for the court to do so as it sees fit. The mere fact of joining is not sufficient to enable the defendant to annul the proceedings or dismiss the action. If there are more than two defendants and more than two causes of action in an application, the claim is considered bad for confusion between the defendant and the cause of action if different pleas against different defendants are combined separately. Such a binding error is technically called versatility. `9. Joinder and non-junction. — No action may be dismissed on the ground that the parties have erred or failed to intervene, and the Court may decide the question in any dispute concerning the rights and interests of the parties currently pending before it: The proceedings shall not be dismissed on the sole ground of avoiding an error or failure to intervene by the parties: R 6.23. As serious as the mixing of the parts may seem, it is not that important.

Rule 9 of Order 1 provides that no action for confusion between the parties may be dismissed. This is a simple irregularity covered by Articles 99 and 99-A of the Code. Section 99 of the Code states: In Assembly of God Church v. Ivan Kapper and Anr. [7] The learned judge concluded that a defect of confusion between the parties and the plea is a defect that can be waived, and that it is not the defect that leads to the dismissal of the application under Rule 11(d) of Order VII. Although false joints or non-interventions do not set aside the proceedings, the court may, in appropriate circumstances, decide issues in a proceeding, notwithstanding the disconnection or confusion of the parties: Finance Corp of Australia v Bentley (1991) 5 BPR 11,883. However, a person who has not intervened as a party and who is affected by decisions taken in the course of the proceedings is in principle entitled to have those decisions set aside: Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1, p. 4. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a bad connection means “an inappropriate union of parties or causes of action in a single legal proceeding.” Thus, if the parties who have no relevant connection to the application are joined or if the pleas raised unrelated to the facts of the case are raised, it is a misalignment of the parties or pleas in law. The objection to the parties` connection error should be raised as soon as possible.

If the parties fail to do so, they are deemed to have waived this right. The decision on whether there is confusion between the parties must be made in the light of the findings made in the application and neither the written statement nor the evidence relied on by the parties should be taken into account. If two or more persons are acting as plaintiffs or defendants in a particular dispute in violation of Order 1, Rule 1 or Rule 1, respectively. 3 and are neither necessary nor correct, it is a confusion between the parties. If persons with different means bring an action, this would also be considered to be an erroneous link between the parties. “99. No order may be repealed or amended by reason of an error or irregularity that does not affect the substance or jurisdiction. — No decree may be repealed or substantially amended, or withdrawn on appeal by reason of an error [or non-intervention] of the parties or the causes of action, or of an error, defect or irregularity in any proceeding relating to the claim. shall not affect the substance of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. An amendment is generally granted to correct an error on behalf of a party, as opposed to a proposed replacement of one defendant with another. Questions of prescription do not arise in cases of simple abuse of language: J Robertson & Co Ltd (in liq) v Ferguson Transformers Pty Ltd (1970) 44 ALJR 441.

A similar provision has been made for defendants under the Code prescribed in Rule 3 of Order 1, which states that, where leave is at its discretion, the court must “take the most appropriate route for the equitable settlement of the dispute between the parties, but taking into account the desirability of restricting as far as possible: costs and delay in litigation”: Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1991) ASC ¶56-033 by Rogers J. in Comm Div. This view has been confirmed by numerous other judgments in this case. It is important to note the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Paikanna Vithoba Mamidwar and Anr. against Laxminarayan Sukhdeo Dalya and Anr. [3], where the Court ruled: “It is therefore no longer necessary that there be an identical interest or an identical means. What is needed is to include common questions of law or fact. « 3. Joining of means. 1. Unless otherwise provided, a plaintiff may, in the same action, combine several pleas in law against the same defendant or defendants; and all plaintiffs who have remedies in which they have a common interest against the same defendant or defendants may combine those remedies in the same action.

The test of sufficient reason to include a person as a party was expressed by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52, at p. 56: Unless a proposed defendant is a person who should have joined under the rules, a plaintiff will generally succeed in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52, p. 56: Unless a proposed defendant is a person who should have joined under the rules, a plaintiff will generally succeed in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v. Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52, p. 56: Unless a proposed defendant is a person who should have joined under the rules, a plaintiff will generally succeed in However, see Ritchie`s at [6.24.35] and see also Burton v Babb [2020] NSWCA 331, where the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to remove two named defendants from the proceedings because, Among other things, it concerned the conduct of the defendant and would be used to establish the alleged offence: at [51]. Unless a court decides otherwise, such a person must be joined as plaintiff if he agrees to be a plaintiff, otherwise as a defendant: r 6.20 (2). (b) if these persons were to bring separate actions, any common question of law or fact would arise.”[1] In Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia and Ors.

[8] The Supreme Court stated: “There is no doubt that the court`s power to vary is preserved, and Rule 10 of Order 1 allows the court to remove parties, but the court cannot use Order 6, Rule 17 or Order 1, Rule 10 to avoid the consequences of non-intervention, for which there is a special provision in the act. The court can order a change and even delete a part that is not necessary.