Courts evaluating improper joinder look at whether the joined causes of action arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, whether they share common questions of law or fact, and whether their combination would promote judicial efficiency or cause prejudice to any party. Judges also consider whether joinder was attempted in good faith or used strategically to manipulate jurisdiction, venue, or delay proceedings. Lawyers handle such reviews effectively by clearly mapping factual and legal connections between claims, citing relevant procedural rules (such as Order II Rule 3 of the CPC or Rule 20/21 equivalents), and presenting persuasive precedents that support or oppose joinder. Skilled advocates also ensure their arguments emphasize fairness and efficiency—showing that proper joinder simplifies litigation, while improper joinder complicates it—thereby helping the court reach a balanced procedural decision.
