(A) Effect of misjoinder and non-joinder. Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, failure to name another person as a party or include him in the action is not ground for dismissal; but such omission is subject to the right of such person to intervene or of an opposing party to name or include him in the action as permitted by these rules. Sub- ject to its sound discretion and on motion of any party or of its own initiative, the court may order parties dropped or added at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just and will avoid delay. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately. Incorrect names and misnomers may be corrected by amendment under Rule 15 at any time.
Rule 21.Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties; venue and jurisdiction over the subject-matter
Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 21 makes clear that suing the wrong mix of parties isn't grounds to dismiss a case — courts fix misjoinder and nonjoinder by adding, dropping, or severing parties — and lets a court with authority over one claim extend that authority to other joined claims and parties.
Full Text of Rule 21
(B) Effect of venue or jurisdiction over part of case. The court shall have venue and authority over all persons or claims required to be joined or permissively joined, impleaded or included by intervention, interpleader, counterclaim or cross-claim if it has venue or is authorized to determine any claim asserted between any of the parties thereto, notwithstanding any requirement of venue or of jurisdiction over the sub- ject-matter applicable to other claims or other parties. The court may transfer the pro- ceedings to the proper court if it determines that venue or authority of the court is dependent upon a claim, or a claim by or against a particular party which appears from the pleadings, or proves to be a sham or made in bad faith; and if another action is pending in this state by or against a person upon the same claim at the time he becomes a party, the court may dismiss the action as to him, or in its sound discretion, it may order all or part of the proceedings to be consolidated with the first pending action.
Amendment History
This rule’s current text took effect January 1, 1970. For the full history of earlier amendments and adoption orders, see the Indiana Office of Court Services.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 21 deals with two related problems: putting the wrong parties into a lawsuit, and having the right parties and claims spread across a case in ways that ordinary venue or jurisdictional rules might otherwise keep apart. Section A takes dismissal off the table for both misjoinder — naming someone who shouldn't be part of the case — and nonjoinder — leaving someone out who should be there. If a party is missing, the remedy is for that person to intervene or for an opposing party to bring them in, not for the case to end. At any stage of the litigation, on its own initiative or on a party's motion, the court can add or drop parties on terms that avoid delay and prevent injustice, and it can sever a claim against one party so that claim proceeds on its own. Getting a party's name wrong, or misnaming them entirely, is never fatal either — that kind of error can be corrected by amendment at any time.
Section B addresses a different joinder problem: what happens when a court has the power to hear one claim in a case but ordinary venue or subject-matter rules might otherwise keep it from hearing a related claim or reaching a particular party. The rule extends the court's venue and authority to every person and claim properly joined, impleaded, or brought in through intervention, interpleader, a counterclaim, or a cross-claim — the court doesn't need independent venue or jurisdictional grounds for each piece of the case once it can hear one part of it. That reach has a limit: if the court finds that its own venue or authority depends on a claim, or on a particular party, that turns out to be a sham or asserted in bad faith, the court can transfer the case to the proper court instead. And if someone who becomes a party is already a defendant or plaintiff in another pending Indiana lawsuit over the same claim, the court can either dismiss the case against that person or, if it prefers, consolidate the two proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a lawsuit be thrown out because the wrong combination of parties was sued?
No. Misjoinder of parties is not grounds for dismissal. The court instead has authority to drop, add, or sever parties as needed.
I forgot to name someone in my complaint who should have been a party. Is my case over?
No, not automatically. Failure to name someone isn't grounds for dismissal on its own — the missing person can intervene, or an opposing party can bring them in, as permitted elsewhere in the rules.
I got a defendant's legal name wrong in my complaint. What do I do?
Incorrect names and misnomers can be corrected by amendment under Rule 15 at any time — there's no deadline for fixing that kind of mistake.
Can the court add or remove parties on its own, without either side asking?
Yes. The court can order parties dropped or added at any stage of the action on its own initiative, as well as on a party's motion, as long as the terms are just and avoid delay.
My case involves claims against different parties who'd normally need different venues. Can one Indiana court still hear everything?
Often, yes. If the court has venue or authority over any claim asserted between the parties, that reach extends to all persons and claims properly joined, impleaded, or brought in by intervention, interpleader, counterclaim, or cross-claim, regardless of venue or subject-matter rules that would otherwise apply to those pieces separately.
What if the same claim against the same person is already pending in another Indiana court?
The court can dismiss the case as to that person, or, at its discretion, consolidate the two proceedings into one.
Can a court transfer a case if a party's claim looks like it was made up just to keep the case in that court?
Yes. If the court determines that its venue or authority rests on a claim, or a claim by or against a particular party, that appears from the pleadings or turns out to be a sham or made in bad faith, it can transfer the proceedings to the proper court.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure (T.R. 21). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Indiana, under its inherent constitutional rulemaking power (reaffirmed by Ind. Code 34-8-1-1 and 34-8-2-1); originally enacted by the Indiana General Assembly in 1969. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: misjoinder of parties indiananonjoinder indiana lawsuitadding or dropping parties indianawrong defendant name lawsuit indianavenue over joined claims indianatrial rule 21 indianaconsolidating pending indiana lawsuits