LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Atuliya (Student)     05 August 2010

Advocate as interested party

Can somebody please throw light on the fact, if an Advocate can appear on behalf of his own family member [say the neice] in a matter related to DV Act

if he is debarred please let me know under what provision of the law will the Advocate be debarred [as an interested party]



Learning

 2 Replies


(Guest)

A interesting que.


For first part my take is Yes a advocate can appear on behalf of his family / relative (here the neice) in DV case and I personally know a gentleman advocate who is exactly helping his neice in Delhi Family Court U/s 12 DV Act and I was priveledged to attend few of his pleadings before the concerned Family Courts.


For second part I think it is mixed question law and facts and my take here is confined to "impleding" a "necessary party" to a suit and not necessary refers in general to your main doubt for which I stand for correction by other members;


A ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a ‘necessary party’ is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A ‘proper party’ is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.


The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’ for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties.

The said sub-rule is extracted below:

“Court may strike out or add parties. 

(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”


Readers may share their knowledge to this post.

Rgds.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register