The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party must have locus standi and be aggrieved by a judgment and decree to file an appeal. The principles of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC were applied to determine the maintainability of the appeal.

1. I have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 on the interlocutory applications No.417 of 2013, I.A. No.416 of 2013 and I.A. No.400 of 2013. Since the learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma at the very outset raised the objection regarding maintainability of this First appeal by the appellant, I heard both the learned counsels on the maintainability of the appeal also.

2. It may be mentioned here that I.A. No.417 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant seeking leave of this Court to file this appeal against the Judgment and decree. I.A. No.416 of 2013 is the application wherein the appellant had prayed for stay of further proceeding in title suit No.234 of 2010 and I.A. No.400 of 2013 is limitation application filed by the appellant praying for condoning the delay in filing this First Appeal.

3. The appellant has filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2012 passed by Sri Krishna Pratap Singh, the learned Sub Judge III, Patna in title suit No.234 of 2010. This present appellant was not a party to the suit. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff-respondents filed the aforesaid title suit No.234 of 2010 praying for enforcement of development agreement dated 29.3.2005 against the defendant developer who was the sole defendant and for further relief that the defendant developer is liable to deliver as per the development agreement, 25 per cent of the Schedule II and III properties to the plaintiff as agreed. It appears that subsequently some interveners applications were filed which were allowed by the trial Court and the intervener were added as party. However, the present appellant never filed any intervention application.

4. The plaintiff respondent claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the suit property with construction was allotted to the plaintiffs along with heirs of Jadubansh Tiwari, Hargovind Tiwari and Abhilakh Tiwari having 20 per cent share each out of 100 per cent. Subsequently, there was exchange of share between the plaintiffs, the heirs of Jadubansh Tiwari, Hargovind Tiwari and Abhilakh Tiwari with the shares allotted in Kolkata property. The heirs of Jadubansh Tiwari gave their 10 per cent share to the heirs of Abhilakh Tiwari in exchange. Further heirs of Jadubansh Tiwari gave their remaining 10 per cent share to the heirs of Jagdish Tiwari, i.e., the plaintiffs. Likewise the heirs of Hargovbind Tiwari gave their 20 per cent share to the heirs of Abilakh Tiwari in exchange. The defendant developer entered into development agreement with the owners. After exchange, the plaintiffs jointly have 25 per cent share and heirs of Abhilakh Tiwari have got 25 per cent in the built up area and the development agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the heirs of Abhilakh Tiwari, Hargovind Tiwari and Jadubansh Tiwari on 29th March, 2005. The heirs of Hargovind Tiwari and Jadubansh Tiwari became confirming party to the said development agreement in view of the exchange. The builders defendants completed the construction in the name of Sidhhi Vinayak Plaza within the stipulated period but due to price rise, the builder has not delivered possession of the flats and shops built over suit property either to the plaintiff or to the heirs of Abhilakh Tiwari. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for enforcement of the agreement and delivery of possession.

5. The defendant developer filed written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff. The heirs of Hargovind Tiwari filed application for being added as party in the suit which was allowed and ultimately by the impugned Judgment and Decree, the suit was decreed on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C.

6. Against the said Judgment and Decree, two First Appeals had been filed. One by the developer being First Appeal No.174 of 2012 and the other by the interven