BALDEV SINGH v. SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA AND ORS

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 43

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.N. KHARE, ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.B. SINHA

Judgment text

BALDEV SINGH -~~ v. SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA AND ORS NOVEMBER I, 2002 [V. N. KHARE, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S. B. SINHA, JJ. ] Code of Civil Procedure, I 908--Section 96-Appeal-Locus to file- Scope of-Property dispute between parties-In Court proceedings one party stating that he had two wives-Other party complaining of bigamy to the employers ofthe husband and second wife--Suit offirst wife decreed declaring the first marriage to have been dissolved-Appeal against the decree by complainant-Permissibility of-Held, not permissible as the complainant had no locus standi to file appeal-He being a third party had nothing to do with relationship ofthe party litigant and his first wife-Appeal maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. During Court proceedings in respect of a dispute regarding property between appellant and respondent No.

I, appellant deposed that he ha departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant on the complaint of Respondent No. I, he, only thereby, cannot be said to have any locus to prefer an appeal as has been contended by Mr. Srivastava. A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned. It is not the contention of Respondent No. 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. Dissolution of marriage of the appellant and his first wife would also have no repercussion on the property in suit. As noticed hereinbefore, the effect of the aforementioned statements made by the appellant in the second suit sball have to be considered by the courts and the departments concerned on their own merits. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Respondent No.

1 herein cannot be said to have any locus standi to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Ludhiana. As a logical corollary of the said finding, it must necessarily be held that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not correct in disposing the civil revision petition by making an observation which . affected the interest of the appellant and that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. It is not correct to contend that the appellant herein has no locus standi to prefer these appeals as an order adverse to his interest has been passed by .. the High Court. It is also not correct to contend that the appellant can raise his contentions in appeal insofar as he cannot be permitted to fight out a matter which, in our opinion, is not maintainable at the instance of Respondent No. I.

Admittedly several other proceedings are pending between the parties, but fr is not necessary to refer thereto having regard to the short question involved in the matter. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, th-e impuged orders cannot be sust<. ined which are set aside. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant herein is also entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 5,000. K. K. T. Appeals disposed of.