JUDGMENT

Kuldip Singh, J —Impugned in the present second appeal against the order is the order dated 12.3.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge Ludhiana whereby an application filed by the present appellants for permission to file third party appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.5.2013 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Ludhiana was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed.

2. It is necessary to go into the background of the case. It comes out that Sat Parkash Goyal filed a suit for declaration against his brother Megh Raj to the effect that he is owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the property situated in Ludhiana and owner in possession of property at Mumbai as detailed in the plaint. He has also sought injunction against him. The suit was instituted on 14.5.2003. On being put to the notice, defendants put in appearance and filed written statement putting forward his side of the story. However, after framing of the issues, the defendants skipped from the proceedings and were proceeded against ex parte on 7.11.2007. Consequently, after recording ex parte evidence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

3. It also comes out that the defendant vide sale deed dated 9.3.2006 sold his Ludhiana property to N.S.Bhangu and Satnam Singh, who further sold the same vide two sale deeds dated 10.10.2012 and 14.5.2013 to the present appellants Jagmohan Singh and Arun Kumar. The present appellants thereafter preferred an appeal against judgment and decree dated 2.7.2013 i.e. within limitation. They also filed application for permission to file appeal being aggrieved persons. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said application and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5. The law question framed by this Court on January 17, 2018 is as under:

"3Whether a person, who is not party to the suit before the lower court can maintain an appeal if so, on which grounds?"

6. It comes out that under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the right to file appeal against judgment and decree of the trial Court is given. Similarly, in Section 100 of CPC 1908, right to file second appeal is given. Right of second appeal is also covered by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. However, the said Sections are silent as to who can prefer an appeal. Normally a person, who is party to the suit has undoubtedly right to file an appeal. Now the question is as to when a person, who though not party to the suit but is adversely affected by the judgment and decree can maintain an appeal The issue was examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hardevinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh and others , (2013) 9 SCC 261 wherein the Apex Court observed as under.

17. "Presently, it is apt to note that Sections 96 and 100 of the Code make provisions for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from a decree in an appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. If a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person, needless to emphasise, he can prefer an appeal. In this context, a passage from Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. is worth noting: (SCC p.575, para 3)

"3..... 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."

7. Therefore, the Apex Court laid down that if a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree, he can maintain an appeal. The said views were followed by the Kerala High Court in Ramchandran Potti Versus Thankam 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 159.

8. Now this Court has to examine as to whether the appellants are prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree or