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 :
“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: