Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Palladino:I dissent to the majority opinion and would sustain the preliminary objections of President Judge Cleland to this petition for declaratory relief.
Three preliminary objections have been made to Petitioners’ request for a declaratory judgment that IVD funds are under control of the County Commissioners rather than the President Judge: (1) lack of a justiciable issue; (2) a demurrer; and (3) res judicata bars the fiction. I object to the majority opinion’s resolution of each objection for the following reasons.
I. Justiciable Issue
At oral argument, counsel for the President Judge withdrew this objection. Therefore, discussion of it is unnecessary.
*335II. Demurrer
I agree with the majority that County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 517 Pa. 65, 534 A.2d 760 (1987) does not impact on this action. In County of Allegheny, the Supreme Court directed the legislature to provide funding for the county courts of common pleas. In doing so, the court recognized that immediate application of its decision was not realistic. The court stayed its judgment to afford the legislature time to. act and stated that “[u]ntil this is done, the prior system of county funding shall remain in place.” Id. at 76, 534 A.2d at 765. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that a cause of action has been pled.
Declaratory relief is not available unless an actual controversy exists, is imminent or inevitable. Colonial School District v. Romano’s School Bus Service, Inc., 115 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 87, 539 A.2d 910 (1988). As the majority correctly notes, “our role is to determine if the facts pled are legally sufficient to permit the action to continue.” Majority op. at 332. Examination of Petitioners’ petition for declaratory relief reveals no alleged facts indicating a current, imminent, or inevitable controversy. The only allegations concerning a controversy are found in paragraphs 14 and 15 of Petitioners’ petition, which state:
14. That there is an actual and present controversy between the plaintiffs and defendant John M. Cleland, President Judge, regarding control of said [IV-D] funds, with the plaintiffs of the opinion that they, in their capacity as members of the Salary Board, have control of all funds which are used as compensation to County employees, while defendant, John M. Cleland, President Judge, is of the opinion that the court has exclusive control of said funds by virtue of *336Article V, § 10, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania as enunciated in 204 Pa. Code §29.6(8). . . . 15. That this controversy is of a real and recurrent nature and a clarification of the parties respective rights is necessary.
That the President Judge and Petitioners disagree as to who has control of IV-D funds, sought to be used to compensate court employees, does not create an actual, imminent, or inevitable controversy. Facts that would demonstrate that the President Judge is currently utilizing the funds for compensation or intends to do so must be alleged.
The majority relies on the fact that the President Judge previously did order IV-D funds disbursed to domestic relations division employees. However, no such allegation appears in Petitioners’ petition. The reference to this past action appears in the President Judge’s res judicata preliminary objection, where the President Judge asserts that Petitioners failed to appeal a contempt order issued because Petitioners refused to sign checks disbursing IV-D funds to domestic relations employees as ordered to be done by the President Judge. As will be explained in section III of this dissent, this past action cannot provide the basis for this declaratory relief petition.
I must also take issue with the majority’s resolution of the President Judge’s objection to the absence from this action of two of the current commissioners. The majority, in concluding that the failure to name the two commissioners is not fatal to the petition, relies in part on the advisement, at oral argument, of Petitioners’ counsel that the two unnamed commissioners seek to have the issue resolved and would agree to be substituted as parties. Substitution of parties cannot be done in this fashion. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1017(b)(5) permits nonjoinder of a necessary party to be raised by preliminary ob*337jection, and when so raised, it should be decided at that time. See 2 Goodrich-Amram 2d §1017(b):16 (1976). The current county .commissioners are necessary parties to this action. The President Judges preliminary objection should be sustained with leave to the Petitioners to request permission to amend their petition to substitute the current commissioners as parties.
III. Res Judicata
The majority correctly sets forth the elements necessary for the doctrine of res judicata to apply to this case, majority op. at 333, and then concludes that there is no identity of causes of action here because the subject matter and the ultimate issue in the unappealed contempt order and the instant case are not identical. I disagree.
The subject matter of both cases is the disbursement of IV-D funds and the ultimate, i.e. determinative, issue in both is whether disbursement of IV-D funds to court employees is compensation to county employees which must be approved by the salary board. By acquiescing in the President Judges order to sign the checks disbursing IV-D funds instead of appealing the order holding them in contempt of court for not signing, Petitioners are barred by the doctrine of res judicata from asserting that the President Judge does not have the authority to order IV-D funds disbursed to court employees.
Accordingly, the President Judges preliminary objections should be sustained and the petition for declaratory relief dismissed.