NEWS: [Section 96 CPC] Strangers Cannot Appeal Unless they Convince the Court that they are Suffering/Aggrieved Person: says Supreme Court

Mere stating that the appellants are prejudicially shaken by the decree is not enough.

The Supreme Court has noted that strangers cannot be permitted to appeal to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If not, he convinces the Court that he tumbles within the class of aggrieved persons.

Sec.96 states that Appeal is offered under Section 96 of the CPC, which speaks that excluding as provided in CPC or any other law for timbering in power, an appeal shall lie from any verdict passed by the Court using Original Jurisdiction to appeal Court sanctioned to hear the Appeal from the verdict of the Court

The bench, including Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari, and S. Ravindra Bhat, observed they have to show that they are prejudicially or severely affected by the decree in a query or any of their legitimate rights stands threatened.

The appellants by the High Court were not a party to the suit, which was ruled by the Trial Court. Though they had tried to find impleaded in the suit, their applications were rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court also declined to grant them quit to file an appeal.

Before the Supreme court, they argued that the judgment of the Trial Court keeping the sale agreements time prohibited & giving a decree of perpetual sanction affects their interests as they are in the custody of the suit property. The bench noted that Sec. 96 & 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure offer for choosing an appeal from any original decree or rule in Appeal separately. The obligations, as mentioned above, do not count the kinds of persons who can appeal. However, it is a resolved legal proposition that a stranger cannot be allowed to file an appeal in any trial unless he satisfies the Court that he falls with the type of victimized persons. It is only where a verdict & decree prejudicially involves a person who is not a party to the trials; he can choose an appeal with the abandon of the Appellate Court.

The bench, referring to some earlier judgments, including Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani v. The State Of Madras signified by the Secretary to the Revenue Department, Madras & Ors., noted that usually leave to appeal should be given to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be compelled by the decree or judgment in that proceeding & who would be barred from criticizing its accuracy in other proceedings. It also noted that the phrase person offended does not involve a person who endures from a psychological or a fictional injury; a person offended must, therefore, undoubtedly be one, who’s right or concern has been adversely affected or endangered .

Examining the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the bench stated that it is in no reason a judgment in rem & it is mandatory only as among the plaintiffs & defendants of the suit, & not for the appellants. Safeguarding the High Court judgment, the bench stated that Though it has been vigorously contended before us & also appealed before the High Court that the judgment & rule of the Trial Court imitates the appellants unfavorably. The appellants have stopped to place any material or validate as to how the judgment & law passed by the Trial Court badly or prejudicially concerns them. A simple saying that the appellants are prejudicially influenced by the decree is not enough. It has to be shown that the decree affects the legal privileges of the appellants & would have an unfavorable effect when brought out. Facts of the case demonstrate that suit which has been ruled is limited only to a declaration requested in respect of an agreement to advertise. The injunction was also required only against the defendant- society or its officials or designates. There is not even a murmur in the whole plaint or in suit actions about the sale deed performed in favor of the appellants by the General Power of Attorney owners or even for that issue in the verdict & decree of the Trial Court. The appellants have thus declined to prove that they are prejudicially or badly influenced by the decree in question or any of their legitimate rights stands threatened to bring them within the scope of the phrase person offended entitling them to keep Appeal against the law.