In Brief

This case concerns whether plaintiffs in a money recovery suit can be forced to add a defendant. The plaintiffs sought recovery of unpaid service charges from a partnership firm. After the suit proceeded without the defendant's appearance, a company claiming to be the firm's successor sought to be added as a defendant. The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs cannot be compelled to implead a party against whom no relief is claimed. The company was neither necessary (no relief sought against it) nor proper (failed to prove successor status). The Court affirmed that plaintiffs control choice of defendants, and mere assertion of business succession does not automatically transfer legal liability in pending suits.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.