The female complainant in a university’s disciplinary proceeding against a male student for alleged sexual assault on the complainant was not an indispensable party to the male student’s mandate proceeding against the university for violating his due process rights in its proceedings which resulted in disciplining him. While the complainant had an interest in the mandate proceeding, complete relief could be issued to the male student without her presence, and the only adverse affect on her was further postponing final resolution of her complaint. So the judgment in the mandate proceeding was not void and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying complainant’s motion to vacate that judgment.