Hardevinder Singh vs. Paramjit Singh & others, Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2013 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35271 of 2011), Decided on 7th January, 2013
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held:
“If a judgment and decree
prejudicially affects a person, needless to emphasize, he can prefer an appeal.”
[Para 13]
The Court also
noted following case laws:
Smt. Jatan
Kanwar Golcha v. M/s. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. AIR 1971 SC 374, it was
held that:
“It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may
prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate Court and such leave should be
granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment.”
State of Punjab
v. Amar Singh and another, AIR 1974 SC 994 Sarkaria, J., while dealing with the
maintainability of an appeal by a person who is not a party to a decree or
order, has stated thus: -
“84. Firstly there is a catena of authorities which, following the
doctrine of Lindley, L.J., in re Securities Insurance Co., (1894) 2 Ch 410 have
laid down the rule that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may
with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is
either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by
it. As a rule, leave to appeal will not be refused to a person who might have
been made ex nominee a party
Baldev Singh v.
Surinder Mohan Sharma and others (2003) 1 SCC 34, a three Judge-Bench opined
that an appeal under Section 96 of the Code would be maintainable only at the
instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and
decree. In the said case, while dealing with the concept of ‘person aggrieved’,
the Bench observed thus:-
“A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is
affected by reason or the judgment and decree sought to be impugned. It is not
the contention of Respondent 1 that in the event the said judgment and decree
is allowed to stand, the same will cause any personal injury to him or shall
affect his interest otherwise.”
Sahadu Gangaram
Bhagade v. Special Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar and another, (1970) 1 SCC 685 it
was observed that the right given to a respondent in an appeal is to challenge
the order under appeal to the extent he is aggrieved by that order. The memorandum
of cross-objection is but one form of appeal. It takes the place of a cross
appeal. In the said decision, emphasis was laid on the term ‘decree’
Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra & ors. 2012 (11) SCALE 39
wherein the Court has held:
“A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules.
Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person
by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a
person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person
aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been
adversely affected or jeopardized.
The Court also
noted following case laws:
Province of Bombay
v. W.I. Automobile Association AIR 1949 Bom 141;
Heera Singh v.
Veerka, AIR 1958 Raj 181
Shivaraya v. Siddamma,
AIR 1963 Mys 127;
Executive Officer
v. Raghavan Pillai, AIR 1961 Ker 114.
In re B, an
Infant (1958) QB 12;
Govinda Menon v.
Madhavan Nair, AIR 1964 Ker 235.
Shanti Kumar R.
Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; State of Rajasthan
& Ors. v. Union of India & ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361
To see entire
text follow the links: