A person not involved in a Civil Suit cannot challenge the decree by filing an appeal, and should instead bring a separate suit to challenge the decree if it affects their interest.

1. Both the appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposal since those were preferred by different appellants challenging a common judgment dated 08.04.2008 passed by Learned District Judge, South Tripura Udaipur in Money appeal No. 3 of 2006 and Money appeal No. 2 of 2007 arising out of Money suit No. 1 of 2005.

2. Money suit No. 1 of 2005 was filed by Sri Power Dasgupta, the respondent No. 1 in RSA 29 of 2008 and the respondent No. 1 in RSA No. 64 of 2008 against the appellants and pro-respondent No. 2 of RSA 29 of 2008 seeking a decree of Rupees 2 lakh as compensation for the damages caused to him due to the act of the defendants.

3. Hereinafter, Shri Power Dasgupta, the respondent No. 1 of RSA 29 of 2008 and RSA 64 of 2008 has been mentioned as the plaintiff and the appellants of RSA No. 29 of 2008 and pro-respondent No. 2 of RSA No. 29 of 2008 hereinafter has been mentioned as the defendants.

4. RSA No. 29 of 2008 has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the impugned decree is based on no evidence?

(ii) Whether the original suit is maintainable in the absence of prayer for declaration as to the right of the plaintiff/respondents to claim damages.”

RSA No. 64 of 2008 has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether a suit can be decreed against a person who was not made party and against whom malice has been alleged.

(2) Whether a decree of damage can be passed in a money suit simplicitor, which does not carry any prayer for decree of declaration for ascertaining the extent of damage.

(3) Whether a Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to substitute the assessment and tendering authority for determining a tender by its judgment.

5. In RSA 29 of 2008 none appeared for the appellant. learned Counsel Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji for the respondent No. 1 appeared and heard.

6. In RSA 64 of 2008, learned Counsel Mr. D. Bhattacharji for the appellant is present and learned Counsel Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji for the respondent No. 1 is also present and I have heard both the learned Counsel. Since nobody appeared in RSA 29 of 2008 for the appellant to argue the matter, the appeal stands dismissed.

7. Learned Counsel Mr. D. Bhattacharji appearing on behalf of the appellant of RSA 64 of 2008 submits that the appellant Shri Sitangshu Chakraborty was not a party in the original money suit whereas the decree was passed affecting his interest. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharji that the Plaintiff Shri Power Dasgupta filled Money suit No 1 of 2005 against 3 defendants namely:-

(1) The Executive Engineer,

Public Health Engineering Division No. VII

Government of Tripura

Belonia, South Tripura.

(2) State of Tripura,

Represented by Secretary P.W.D,

Secretariate Building,

Government of Tripura, Agartala,

Tripura West…………….Defendents.

(3) Jiban Deep Engineering

Proprietor Sri Amiya Chakraborty @

Amiya Lal Chakraborty

South Bank of Mahadeb Dighi,

P.O. Radhakishorepur, Udaipur,

Tripura South…………….Pro-Defendant

Plaintiff instituted the suit seeking compensation of Rupees 2 lakh for the damage caused to him due to action/inaction on the part of the defendants. The Defendants contested the suit by filing written statements. In course of trial, the trial Court framed 5 issues and after recording evidence all those material issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit. It is submitted that while passing the decree the trial Court made an observation which affects the interest of the appellant Shri Sitangshu Chakraborty of RSA 64 of 2008 and therefore the said Shri Sitangshu Chakraborty challenged the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2006 and 21.09.2006 passed in M.S. 1 of 2005 by filing Money Appeal No. 2 of 2007. The defendants No. 1 and 2 also preferred Money appeal No. 3 of 2006 and both the appeals were disposed of by impugned common judgment dated 08.04.2008 passed by Learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur (now Goma