Courts consistently observe that non-joinder of a necessary party strikes at the root of fair adjudication, as no effective or enforceable decree can be passed in the absence of someone whose rights are directly affected. Judicial opinions emphasize that while procedural defects should not defeat substantive justice, the absence of a truly necessary party makes it impossible for the court to resolve the dispute completely. Under Order I Rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), courts generally prefer to allow impleadment of the omitted party rather than dismissing the suit outright—unless the plaintiff neglects to cure the defect despite being given an opportunity. Judges often note that it is the duty of both parties and the court to ensure all essential persons are included, as the aim of civil litigation is to settle all connected issues in a single proceeding. Best lawyers, learning from these rulings, make it a practice to identify all stakeholders early, file impleadment applications promptly when necessary, and cooperate with the court to correct any omissions. This proactive approach aligns with the judicial view that procedural rules are meant to advance justice, not obstruct it.
