Non-joinder of indispensable parties barred merits review and made the appeal incompetent.

An appeal challenging a decree could not be entertained on merits where defendants 2 and 3, against whom the original decree also operated, were not impleaded. The court held that any retrial or remand affecting liability could not proceed in the absence of indispensable parties, because their rights could not be reopened without hearing them. It further observed that the foreign judgment relied on by the defendants was not conclusively displaced on the material before it, and allegations of fraud could not justify a merits-based retrial without the necessary parties. The non-joinder rendered the appeal incompetent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal suit could be adjudicated on merits when all defendants to the suit were not impleaded in the appeal, and whether the decree could be reopened or remanded without the presence of the omitted defendants.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the decree only against some defendants, but defendants 2 and 3, against whom the original decree had also operated, were not parties to the appeal. The Court held that a retrial or remand of the issues was not possible in their absence, because any reconsideration of liability would affect their rights and expose them to consequences without an opportunity of hearing. The Court also noted that the foreign judgment relied on by the defendants could not be treated as conclusively dislodged on the material before it, and that the question of fraud in relation to a foreign judgment could not justify a merits-based retrial in the absence of the necessary parties. The non-joinder of indispensable parties made the appeal incompetent.

Conclusion: The appeal suit was not properly constituted and could not be entertained on merits; it was dismissed as incompetent.

---