Ramesh Hirachand v. MCGM (1992) 2 SCC 524

The plaintiff challenged a demolition notice by the city corporation. HPCL, the landowner, asked to be added as a defendant. The courts below said “yes.”

• Key point: Add a party only if the court cannot pass an effective order without them, or their presence is needed for a complete decision.
• Dominus litis: The plaintiff decides whom to sue; courts interfere only when essential.
• Result: The Supreme Court held HPCL was not necessary or proper. No compulsion to implead.

1. Is HPCL a necessary or proper party for this suit about a demolition notice?
2. Can a plaintiff be forced to implead a party against whom no relief is claimed?

• Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Court may add parties who are necessary (no effective order possible without them) or proper (needed for complete decision).
• Dominus Litis: Plaintiff’s choice stands unless the party is essential for adjudication. Avoid expanding issues beyond the suit’s scope.

• Order 1 Rule 10 CPC applied: Necessary party = essential for effective order; proper party = aids complete adjudication.
• HPCL not necessary/proper: Notice targeted plaintiff’s alleged unauthorised chattels; decree possible without HPCL.
• Dominus litis respected: Plaintiff cannot be forced to sue third parties without direct legal stake.
• Avoid issue-creep: Adding HPCL would expand the suit beyond the demolition notice.

Direct legal interest is the touchstone. Evidence or commercial interest alone does not justify impleadment. The plaintiff’s choice stands unless an effective decree is impossible without the added party.

• Sets a clear, exam-friendly test for “necessary” vs “proper” parties.
• Guards against expanding suits through unnecessary additions.
• Reaffirms dominus litis and procedural economy.

• 1 Effective decree without X? Then X is not necessary.
• 2 Adding parties must not widen issues beyond the plaint.
• 3 Dominus litis: plaintiff’s choice controls, barring necessity.
• 4 Evidence-holder ≠ necessary party without legal stake.

Mnemonic: “DECREE NEEDS X?”

• DECREE → Can court grant one without X?
• NEEDS → If yes, add X; if no, do not.
• X? → Must have a direct legal interest, not just evidence.

3-Step Hook:

1. Identify relief: What order is sought?
2. Test necessity: Is X essential to make that order work?
3. Scope check: Will adding X distort the suit’s boundaries?

Dominus Litis

“Master of the suit”—plaintiff chooses defendants.

Necessary Party

Without this party no effective decree can be passed.

Proper Party

Party whose presence helps complete and final decision.

Impleadment

Adding a party as plaintiff/defendant to ongoing litigation.