Concept Of “Necessary Party” In Writ Petition Is Far Broader Than In A Purely Civil Suit: J&K High Court

Setting a precedent regarding who can be considered a "necessary party" in writ petitions the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the concept of a necessary party in a writ petition is far broader than in a purely civil suit. Shedding light on a much broader application of Order 1 Rule 10 concerning writ petitions a bench of Justices Tashi Rabstan & M A Chowdhary observed, “The Writ Court cannot keep itself confined merely to the litigants appearing before it or on the record available nor will it keep itself confined only to the lis before it, but will also take into account the consequences or the effect which the decision will have or is likely to have on the interests of others who may not be wholly necessary for decision of the issue at hand…Viewed from this angle, the concept of necessary party in a purely Civil Suit and a Writ Petition cannot be one and the same”. Deliberating on the contours of “necessary party” viz a viz a writ petition in contrast to a civil suit the court said, “Unlike in a Civil Suit, for being a proper or a necessary party, where the applicant has to show a fair semblance of title or interest, the applicant, in a Writ Petition, has to satisfy the Court as to whether the applicant will be vitally affected by the decision to be taken in the Writ Petition”. Criticising the writ court's narrow interpretation of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC regarding the impleadment of necessary parties the bench stated that the concept of the necessary party in a purely Civil Suit and a Writ Petition cannot be the same, as the scope of the necessary party in a Writ Petition is much wider than in a Civil Suit.