Indian courts have consistently adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach toward issues of misjoinder of parties, treating them as procedural irregularities rather than fatal defects. The judiciary emphasizes that the objective of procedural law is to facilitate justice, not obstruct it. Under Order I, Rule 9 of the CPC, courts have reiterated that no suit shall be defeated merely due to misjoinder or non-joinder, except when a necessary party is absent. Landmark judgments such as Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria and Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reflect this leniency, holding that procedural errors should not override the substantive rights of the parties. Courts generally prefer to allow amendments or order the addition or removal of parties under Order I, Rule 10, ensuring that cases are decided on their merits rather than technical grounds. However, where misjoinder causes prejudice, affects jurisdiction, or leads to a miscarriage of justice, courts exercise stricter scrutiny. Overall, the judicial attitude balances procedural discipline with equitable flexibility, ensuring fairness and efficiency in the administration of justice.
