Order I Rule 10 CPC in Pakistan: Adding and Removing Parties to a Civil Suit

A civil suit is not only about identifying the correct legal claim. It is also about ensuring that the right people are before the court. An omitted party may have an interest that cannot properly be determined in their absence. Conversely, someone unnecessarily named as a defendant may be forced to bear the expense and inconvenience of litigation with which they have no sufficient connection.

Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) provides the machinery for correcting these problems. It empowers the court to add a person who ought to be before it and to remove a person who has been improperly joined. Its purpose is to enable effective adjudication—not to admit every interested observer or convert an existing suit into a collection of unrelated disputes. ^[1]

For litigants involved in property and inheritance disputes or contractual and commercial disputes, understanding this distinction can be as important as understanding the substantive law governing their claims.

What Does Order I Rule 10 Allow?

The principal power appears in Order I Rule 10(2). The court may act at any stage of the proceedings, upon an application or on its own initiative, and impose appropriate terms. It may strike out an improperly joined plaintiff or defendant, or add a person whose participation satisfies the statutory test. An application by someone seeking to enter the proceedings is commonly described as an application for impleadment or intervention. ^[2]

Rule 10 also addresses other situations. Sub-rule (1) permits correction of a bona fide mistake concerning the identity of the plaintiff where necessary to determine the real dispute. Sub-rule (3) contains consent safeguards concerning addition as a plaintiff or as a next friend. ^[2]

The central question under sub-rule (2), however, is whether the proposed party is a necessary party or a proper party. These are alternative grounds for joinder: an applicant does not have to establish both.

Necessary Parties and Proper Parties: The Essential Difference

A necessary party: someone without whom an effective decree cannot be passed

A necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined and in whose absence the court cannot pass an effective decree.

The focus is not simply on whether that person would find the litigation important. It is whether the relief sought can properly and effectively be determined without their participation. An unresolved omission of a genuinely necessary party can therefore be fatal to the proceedings. This distinction is reflected in the Supreme Court authorities, including Mst. Rani v. Mst. Razia Sultana, 1994 SCMR 2268, and remains part of the test applied by the Sindh High Court. ^[1]

An estate dispute illustrates the inquiry. Where a suit seeks a comprehensive determination of competing shares in identified property, the application should explain whose claimed entitlement would necessarily be determined, displaced or left unresolved by the proposed decree. Merely describing someone as a relative does not answer that question.

A proper party: someone needed for complete adjudication

A proper party is someone whose presence is required to enable the court to resolve the questions involved in the suit completely and effectively, even though an effective decree might otherwise be possible between the existing parties.

In Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan, PLD 1975 SC 463, the Supreme Court connected this category with avoiding multiple proceedings and protecting interests likely to be affected. Crucially, relief need not have been claimed against a person for that person to qualify as a proper party. The Court reaffirmed that approach in Uzin Export Import Enterprises for Foreign Trade v. Union Bank of Middle East Ltd., PLD 1994 SC 95. ^[3]

The practical distinction is between someone whose participation is indispensable to an effective decree and someone whose participation is required for a complete resolution of the existing controversy. Neither category embraces a person merely because they would prefer to have a voice in the litigation.

Judicial Discretion Does Not Mean Unlimited Discretion

In Pakistan Banking Council v. Ali Mohtaram Naqvi, 1985 SCMR 714, the Supreme Court emphasised that a person must fall within one of the recognised categories. The breadth of the court’s discretion does not authorise it to join someone who is neither necessary nor proper, or unnecessarily subject strangers to a trial. ^[3]

Similarly, Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry v. Akbar Hussain, PLD 2002 SC 615, explains that addition of parties ordinarily involves judicial discretion exercised in light of the particular facts and circumstances. Once proceedings have been instituted, addition requires the court’s permission; the parties cannot simply change the array themselves. ^[4]

A useful way to approach an application is therefore to ask two connected questions:

What identifiable interest does the applicant have in the controversy, and what would remain inadequately determined if the applicant were absent?

The second question is particularly important. An application should do more than describe the hardship that litigation may cause. It should explain the proposed party’s role in resolving the issues the court is already being asked to decide.

What Nazar Gul Actually Demonstrates

The Sindh High Court’s decision in Nazar Gul v. Maymar Housing Service (Pvt.) Ltd. & others, 2019 MLD 212, is valuable both for its summary of the governing principles and for their application.

The judgment considered intervention in two different suits. In the first, concerning specific performance of a sale agreement, the proposed intervenors were neither necessary nor proper parties. Their attempt to obtain possession under their own allotment arrangements introduced claims requiring an independent remedy.

In the second suit, however, the court admitted certain intervenors as proper parties because payments made by them were relevant to the accounting controversy already before it. Their participation was restricted: they could not use that suit to pursue specific performance of their allotment letters.

The judgment also emphasised examining how an applicant’s absence would affect the court’s decision, rather than focusing only on how the suit might affect the applicant. Its practical lesson is that the same person may qualify for joinder in one suit but not another, depending on the questions actually in issue. ^[1]

A Modern Example: A Mortgage Interest Affected by the Suit

In Industrial Development Bank Ltd. v. Bankers Equity Ltd. & others, Special High Court Appeal No. 418 of 2022, decided on 19 August 2025, the Sindh High Court considered an applicant holding a pari passu mortgage interest—an interest ranking alongside another lender’s security over the property.

The applicant was not treated as a necessary party. Nevertheless, foreclosure or auction in execution of the eventual banking decree could affect its mortgage rights. The court therefore allowed its addition as a proper party, setting aside the earlier refusal of joinder. ^[5]

This banking and finance dispute illustrates why the inquiry cannot end with whether the plaintiff seeks money or some other relief directly from the proposed defendant. A legally relevant interest may be affected through the consequences of the relief sought.

Being a Witness Is Not the Same as Being a Party

An applicant may have valuable evidence, possess relevant documents or have personally witnessed a disputed transaction. Those matters do not, by themselves, establish an entitlement to become a party.

In Naeem Gabol & others v. Province of Sindh & others, H.C.A. No. 217 of 2024, decided on 31 May 2024, the Sindh High Court declined to require the addition of the Karachi Development Authority merely because it held relevant records. A witness from the authority could be summoned to produce those records without making the authority a party. ^[6]

The distinction matters in inheritance litigation. Someone who witnessed a family arrangement may be an important witness. Someone who both witnessed the arrangement and claims an entitlement directly affected by its enforcement or invalidation presents a different question. The application should identify the latter interest rather than rely exclusively on the applicant’s knowledge of events.

Applying the Rule to an Inheritance and Property Dispute

Consider an anonymised illustration adapted from an impleadment application.

A widow seeks to join an estate suit. Her late husband was a defendant and was himself an heir of the original owner. She and her children occupy part of the disputed property. She alleges that she contributed substantial sums towards renovation and participated in, or witnessed, a distribution of the estate.

These allegations raise several distinct questions. They should not be treated as interchangeable grounds for joinder.

Identify the claimed legal interest

The strongest starting point is the asserted connection between the applicant and the rights being litigated.

The pleading should explain whether a share vested in the husband before his death, how the applicant claims through that share, and which declaration, partition, accounting or possession claim in the existing suit would affect it. The sequence of deaths, the alleged devolution of the property and the precise relief sought all require attention.

For drafting purposes, a family tree, death records, relevant title documents and any alleged distribution instrument are more useful than a general assertion that the applicant is “connected to the estate.” The task is to demonstrate the connection, not merely describe it.

Explain the significance—and limits—of possession and renovation expenditure

Residence in the property may explain the applicant’s immediate concern. Renovation receipts may substantiate expenditure. Neither fact, standing alone, answers the separate question of ownership or establishes why participation is required in the particular suit.

For example, a receipt may prove that a person paid for construction materials. It does not necessarily prove the legal basis on which the payment was made, whether repayment was promised, or whether any proprietary entitlement arose.

The application should therefore connect possession and expenditure to an identified claim already relevant to the proceedings. It should not assume that adding the applicant will automatically produce a declaration of ownership or an award reimbursing renovation costs.

Distinguish independent joinder from substitution after death

Where the husband was already a defendant and died during the suit, Order XXII, particularly Rule 4, must be examined. Representation of his estate and intervention based on a distinct personal interest are different procedural questions. Order I Rule 10 should not bypass the applicable substitution procedure.

Address the children’s representation separately

Under Order XXXII, a minor plaintiff acts through a next friend; a minor defendant requires a guardian for the suit. The representative must have no adverse interest. A mother’s addition in her personal capacity does not itself join the children or constitute their proper representation as minors.

The lesson from this illustration is straightforward: an application is stronger when it separates the applicant’s own claim, the deceased party’s representation, the children’s interests and the evidential background.

Removing a Party: Correcting Misjoinder, Not Deciding the Suit Prematurely

Order I Rule 10(2) also permits the removal of an improperly joined party. But deletion is not a substitute for determining a contested claim on evidence.

In Abdul Samad & others v. Sher Muhammad & others, C.P. No. S-529 of 2025, decided on 18 May 2026, the Sindh High Court considered the deletion of a defendant from a possession suit. The plaintiffs alleged that he had helped dispossess them and sought damages against him. The revisional court had removed him because he claimed no right or interest in the property.

The High Court reversed that decision. The allegations required testing through evidence; the absence of a proprietary claim did not dispose of the pleaded claim against him.

Relying on MCB Bank Ltd. v. Sajida Naqi Riaz, 2019 CLC 1371, the court explained that striking out addresses improper joinder. It is not intended to achieve summary dismissal of the suit against a defendant.

A person may be a relevant defendant because of alleged liability, even without claiming ownership of the disputed property. ^[7]

Does Non-Joinder Automatically Defeat a Suit?

No. Order I Rule 9 directs that a suit should not be defeated merely because of misjoinder or non-joinder, and permits the court to determine the rights and interests of those actually before it. Courts should distinguish a correctable defect from the unresolved absence of someone indispensable to the decree. The Sindh High Court has accordingly emphasised allowing appropriate correction rather than rejecting proceedings for a technical defect in the array of parties. ^[8]

That approach does not make necessary parties optional. As Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry recognises, omission of a necessary party may leave a decree unable to bind that person. The practical objective is to identify and remedy the defect before it compromises effective adjudication. ^[4]

The sensible question is therefore not simply, “Has someone been omitted?” It is, “Does that omission prevent the court from effectively deciding the relief sought, and can it now be corrected?”

When Should an Application or Objection Be Raised?

Although Rule 10 permits intervention at any stage of proceedings, promptness remains important. Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry recognises the breadth of the power, but that does not dispense with the procedural requirements applicable at the particular stage. Appellate joinder, for example, requires attention to the appellate framework as well as the applicant’s claimed interest. ^[4]

Order I Rule 13 requires objections to misjoinder or non-joinder to be taken at the earliest opportunity and ordinarily at or before settlement of issues, unless the ground arises later. Failure to do so may result in waiver.

The Supreme Court’s discussion in Muhammad Arif v. District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot, 2011 SCMR 1591, emphasises timely objections and recognises that parties need not possess equal interests in the entire subject matter. Although that case arose in the family-court context, its discussion of civil joinder principles has subsequently been applied by the Sindh High Court. ^[8]

As a practical matter, an applicant approaching the court late should explain when the relevant facts became known and why joinder was not sought earlier. Early action gives the court a better opportunity to settle the proper parties before evidence and final adjudication.

What Happens After a Party Is Added?

Under Rule 10(4), the plaint is ordinarily amended as necessary, unless the court otherwise directs, and amended copies of the summons and plaint are served on the new defendant.

Joinder may also be subject to limits protecting the existing scope of the suit. In Uzin Export Import Enterprises, the permitted defence concerned the correctness of the amount claimed under the bank guarantees; intervention was not an unrestricted opportunity to introduce every possible controversy. ^[3]

This provides a useful answer to the objection that every additional party will necessarily derail the proceedings. Where joinder is justified, a carefully framed order can identify the purpose of participation and prevent unrelated disputes from overwhelming the original case.

Limitation: Addition Does Not Automatically Relate Back

A separate issue is whether the claim involving the newly added party is within time.

Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908 generally treats a suit, as regards a newly added or substituted plaintiff or defendant, as instituted when that person is made a party. It contains exceptions, including addition or substitution arising from assignment or devolution of an interest during the suit, and transposition between plaintiff and defendant.

Rule 10(5) separately addresses commencement against an added defendant upon service of summons, expressly subject to section 22.

The practical warning is that obtaining permission to add someone does not, by itself, resolve limitation. Counsel should distinguish ordinary addition of a new party from substitution or devolution, and examine the relevant dates rather than assume that the original institution date protects every later claim.

Preparing a Persuasive Application

A useful drafting approach is to organise the application around four matters:

1. The existing controversy: Identify the relief claimed and the issues the court must decide.
2. The applicant’s connection: Explain the legal interest, alleged liability or representative capacity relied upon, supported by relevant documents.
3. The reason participation is required: Show why an effective decree cannot be passed without the applicant, or why their presence is required for complete adjudication.
4. The precise procedural relief: Specify the proposed position in the suit and address consequential amendment, representation of minors, substitution or other directions where relevant.

For an application seeking deletion, the corresponding task is to explain why the person has been improperly joined—not merely to argue that the allegations against them will ultimately fail.

A focused application is more persuasive than a lengthy account of every disagreement between the applicant and the existing parties. Each factual allegation should help answer the statutory question.

Conclusion

Order I Rule 10 is concerned with having the right parties before the court—not the largest possible number of parties.

For a proposed intervenor, the essential task is to connect an identifiable interest with the questions already involved in the suit. For someone seeking removal, it is to demonstrate improper joinder without asking the court to prematurely decide contested merits.

The authorities illustrate a balanced approach: admit participation where it is needed, exclude unrelated controversies, protect parties from unnecessary litigation, and correct procedural defects before they undermine the eventual decision. Above all, being added to a suit is not the same as proving the underlying claim. It provides the opportunity for the relevant issues to be properly heard and determined.

This article provides general information about civil procedure in Pakistan, with particular reference to Sindh. The applicable procedural provisions, local amendments and requirements of any special statutory forum should be examined in the context of the particular proceedings.