In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6507 of 2008 Date of decision: April 17, 2009 Arun Singh Dhumal ... Petitioner vs. Rajiv Bhatnagar and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J The court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar, vide order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-5), while deciding issue No.8 as preliminary issue decided that Arun Narang and Mahesh Sharma were the necessary parties, consequently decided issue No.8 against the plaintiffs. Resultantly, he provided opportunity to the plaintiffs to amend the suit by adding them as parties against which the present petition has been filed. The defendants-petitioners had taken a specific plea in their written statement that Arun Narang son of Kewal Kishore Narang and Mahesh Sharma son of Daulat Ram Sharma were introduced as trustees of the Saraswati Education Foundation (Trust with its office in the premises of Delhi Public School) and they are necessary parties in the present suit as their rights are going to be effected by the fate of the suit. On this objection, a specific preliminary issue was framed. It has been observed in case Homi Nariman Bhiwandiwala vs. The Zoroastrain Co-operative Credit Bank Ltd. And another, AIR 2001 Bombay 267 that in case of trust which is not a legal entity, all the trustees should be joined if a legal action is initiated against the trust. It is not disputed that other trustees except the aforesaid two persons have already been impleaded as defendant and the present defendants being the remaining trustees also need to be brought on record for removing the technical defect. In any case, where an objection as to non-joinder has been taken by the defendants at the earliest stage, then the court cannot immediately proceed to dismiss the suit without Civil Revision No. 6507 of 2008 -2- *** giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the absent party. A similar view was taken in case Nitya Sadhu Jamatia and others vs. Chandra Dayal Jamatia and others, AIR 1970 Tripura 80. Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, itself annunciates that no suit should be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non joinder of the parties and the court may in every suit deal with matter in controversy so far as regarding rights and interests of parties actually before it. However, the suit could be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, but if this proviso if read with Rule 10 (2) of Order 1 CPC, then it places an obligation on the part of the court to provide opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding necessary parties. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 reads as under :- “(2) Court may strike out or add parties – The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” The object of the rule is to bring before the court all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to one subject matter so that the dispute may be determined without delay, inconvenience and exercise of separate action and trials. Both the aforesaid rules confer a discretion upon the court to add the necessary parties and also put an embargo upon the court not to dismiss the suit without providing opportunity to the parties to add the necessary parties. Hence, no grounds to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. April 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge