BERI, J.—This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bikaner, who dismissed the plaintiffs appeal merely because the plaintiff-applicant failed to implead one of the defendants in the appeal.

2. The plaintiff-applicant had instituted a suit before the Civil Judge, Churu, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 418/-. There were as many as seven defendants in the said suit. They were Farid Khan, Nabu Khan, Faridkhan Joya, Musraf Khan, Nureykhan, Fatehchand and Bajranglal. The Civil Judge decreed the suit against Joya Faridkhan; defendant No. 3 alone and that too in the sum of Rs. 340/-. He dismissed the suit against the remaining six defendants. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bikaner, impleading only these six remaining defendants as respondents. He did not implead Joya Faridkhan as a party to this appeal. At the hearing an objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the appeal must be dismissed due to the non-joinder of Joya Faridkhan, The learned District Judge, Bikaner, relying on Sadhuram Vs. Mohammad Ali (1) upheld the objection of the respondents and dismissed the appeal. The application has now come up in revision to this Court.

3. I have heard Shri Kishore Singh for the applicant and Shri P.C. Mathur for the non-applicants.

4. What is the effect of not joining a defendant in an appeal, if no relief is claimed against him? This is the short question which has to be answered. There is nothing like a natural or inherent right residing in a litigant enabling him to prefer an appeal. A right of appeal must be conferred by statute. Under the Code of Civil Procedure this right is available, broadly speaking, if two conditions are satisfied. Firstly, there must be a decree conclusively determining the rights of the parties and secondly, the party appealing must have been adversely affected by such determination. The plaintiffs right qua the six defendants in the case before me were conclusively determined to the effect that the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree against them and the six defendants were not liable to payany thing to him. The decision adversely affected the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff had a right of appeal against the judgement and decree of the Civil Judge, Churu. He had also a right of appeal against Joya Faridkhan in so far as his claim against this defendant was partly disallowed. There is no doubt that the plaintiff could waive his right of appeal against the third defendant to the extent the plaintiffs claim was dis-allowed. Since he has not claimed any relief against the third defendant Joya Faridkhan, it is obvious that that plaintiff did rest content with what had been granted to him against this defendant. It is difficult to comprehend as to why the plaintiffs right to appeal against the dismissal of his claim so far as the six other defendants was concerned, could be defeated merely on the ground that he had chosen to abandon his right of appeal against the third defendant.

5. The view taken by Bannerji J. C, in the Himachal Pradesh case, already referred above, adopts the following lines of reasoning. Let me quote the learned Judge:

"When there are two or more defendants, it may happen that a suit is dismissed against one of them or in other words, the decree on the face of it may be entirely in favour of the plaintiff. Can the plaintiff appeal against that decree without making the defendant a party against whom the suit was decreed in full, on the sole ground that the other defendant against whom the suit has been dismissed should also be held liable for his claim? He cannot."

With great respect I am unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge. The reason which prevailed with the learned Judge was that such a decree "impliedly negatives the right claimed by] him against the other defendant. His claim is fully satisfied and he has to realise the claim from the defendant against whom the decree has been ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document