Case Study About The Third Party With Independent Claim Was Wrongly Added As Co-defendant

The civil subjects settle the disputes by means of action and the court will judges whether it is suitable for the investigation when the litigant enters the stage of litigation. If we find out the litigant is not the main body of the case. The existence of litigation that is lost for the purpose of dispute resolution and waste of judicial resources. In theory, the right of action as the general standard of determination to determine whether the parties are appropriate. And with the gradual independence of the procedural law, as the basis of the implementation of the right to the management of the basis of the limitations are more obvious. The interest theory of litigation is a supplement to the theory of management right.The second instance court found that the defendant is not suitable for additional in this case. Because of its complicated involvement with the fact that the defendant exists in this action is wrongly classified as a co defendant. And it did not bear the responsibility in the proceedings; its counterclaim should be independent right of claim. In our country, it is too hard to solve the complicated disputes, because the provisions of the independent claim and the necessary joint action are too simple and it cannot meet the needs of the reality. In addition, judicial officers fail to recognize these two types of litigation in essence, and causing the extension of the scope of application of the necessary joint action in practice. In this paper, the author makes a theoretical analysis of the definition of the parties and the definition of the necessary joint action and the third party with independent claim. I hope this article can be helpful to the judgment of similar cases in practice.This paper is divided into three parts:The first part introduces the basic facts of the case and the focus of controversy in this case. First of all, this part introduces the basic situation of the case. And then through the analysis of the case of the focus of controversy, and finally come to the case of the focus of controversy. Tong Company is whether neither the eligibility party nor the third party with independent claim.The second part is about the theory and analysis of the focus of controversy in this case. First of all, the author analysis from the identification standard of party in procedure and proper party that Tong Company are appended to the case of co defendant, and draw a conclusion. Tong Company is the concerned party in this case and does not have the right of litigation implementation program. Secondly, based on the analysis of the related theory of necessary joint action, Tong Company and Hong Company there were no common obligation that Tong Company is not a joint defendant. Finally, through the above analysis, we obtained that Tong Company is not proper party in this case and shall not be filed a counterclaim, then Tong Company has the substantive right of 3 buildings involved in the case. According to the essential differences between the necessary joint action and the right to request an independent third party, then identified Tong Company is having the right to request an independent third party.The third part is the conclusion and Enlightenment of this case. Based on the theoretical analysis above, we make the conclusion of this case. Tong Company was added as a co defendant is not appropriate. Because it does not have the right to litigation, so it is not suitable for the parties. Ting and Hong companies have no common obligation, they are not co defendants. According to the theory of the third party with independent claim and necessary joint action, confirming the Tong Company's status in litigation. According to the results of this case, the author has some thoughts that the party's replacement system shall be carried out selectively and through the analysis of the nature of the third party with independent claim.