R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2000 Date of decision: 30.09.2010 Shiv Dayal Nijhara ....Appellant Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate, for Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) There is no necessity to go into the merits of the controversy raised, as the plaintiff/appellant claimed main relief against the State of Haryana. However, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff/appellant, State of Haryana was not impleaded as party. The suit being bad, for not impleading necessary party was not maintainable. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal, therefore, is: - “Whether a suit where necessary party is not impleaded is maintainable? Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit of the plaintiff/appellant cannot be rejected for the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, as the Court in every suit is to still deal with the matter, in R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2000 -2- controversy, as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulates that this proposition does not apply to non- joinder of a necessary party. As the relief claimed is against the State of Haryana, therefore, State of Haryana being necessary party but not impleaded, the suit filed was not competent. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 30, 2010 R.S.