Point of law : Applicants have been able to make out more than a prima facie case for grant of leave to appeal. The applicants could be said to be prima facie prejudicially affected by the consent decrees.

ORDER :

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. The present Civil Applications have been filed seeking leave to prefer Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The applicants-appellants have filed the present Appeals seeking to challenge the two consent decrees dated 15th March 2016 and 17th December 2016 respectively drawn by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan, in the Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2016 and Special Civil Suit No.19 of 2016 respectively. Indisputably, the applicants herein were not the parties to the suit proceedings.

LAW GOVERNING THE GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL :

3. Sections 96 and 100 respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls with the category of aggrieved persons. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court. [see Sri V.N.Krishna Murthy and another vs. Sri Ravikumar and others (Civil Appeal Nos.2701-2704 of 2020, decided on 21st August 2020)]

4. We may also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties Private Limited, reported in (1970) 3 SCC 573. The same reads thus :

“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.”

5. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Amar Singh and another, reported in (1974) 2 SCC 70, while dealing with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is not party to a suit, has observed thus : “Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the dictum 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.”

6. In the case of Baldev Singh vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 34, the Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. While dealing with the concept of person aggrieved, it was observed in paragraph 15 as under :

“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.”

7. In the aforesaid judgment, a compromise decree was passed in a suit between husband and wife to the effect that their marriage stood dissolved from an earlier date by virtue of a memorandum of customary dissolution of marriage. The said decree was sought to be challenged by a person who was having a property dispute with the husband and who had filed complaints against the husband to the employer of the husband, in contravention of the Employment Rules having contracted a second marriage. The Supreme Court, while holding that the person who was seeking to challenge the decree had no locus standi to do so, held: (a) that there is no dispute that as against the decree, an appeal would be maintainable in terms of Section 96 of the CPC; such an appeal, however would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree; (b) that the dispute between the said person and the husband was in relation to a property and the said person, save for making complaints to the employer of the husband, had nothing to do with the marital status of the husband;