Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by Kiran Ramesh Kothari, a neighbour of the plaintiff in a suit, against an order protecting a balcony construction. The plaintiff had obtained an order from the trial court protecting the balcony structure. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, sought leave to appeal. The respondent (plaintiff) contended that the appeal was not maintainable because the appellant was not a party to the suit. The appellant argued that she was an aggrieved person and thus entitled to appeal. The court noted that in an earlier litigation regarding the same structure, the appellant had applied to be a party defendant but was not granted that status. The suit was decreed, and a second suit was filed by the respondent. Instead of seeking impleadment again, the appellant chose to appeal. The court examined the legal position regarding appeals by non-parties. It relied on the judgment in Province of Bombay v. Western India Automobile Association, AIR 1949 Bombay 141, where a Division Bench held that an appeal by a person not a party to the lis is maintainable if the person is aggrieved and applies for leave. The court found that the appellant, being a neighbour and having an interest in the property, was an aggrieved person. Accordingly, the court granted leave to appeal and directed that the appeal be heard on merits. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal but only the maintainability issue.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Appeal by Non-Party - Maintainability - Order 43 Rule 1A, Section 96 CPC - The court considered whether a person not a party to the suit can file an appeal against an order. Held that an appeal by a non-party is maintainable if the person is aggrieved and applies for leave. The court relied on Province of Bombay v. Western India Automobile Association, AIR 1949 Bombay 141, which held that a non-party can appeal with leave if aggrieved. (Paras 1-4) B) Civil Procedure Code - Aggrieved Person - Locus Standi - Order 43 Rule 1A CPC - The appellant, a neighbour, sought to challenge an order protecting a balcony construction. The respondent argued the appeal was not maintainable as the appellant was not a party. The court held that the appellant, being a neighbour and having previously sought to be impleaded, was an aggrieved person and granted leave. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal is maintainable by a person who is not a party to the suit but claims to be aggrieved by the order passed therein.
Final Decision
The court granted leave to appeal and directed that the appeal be heard on merits. The court held that the appeal by a non-party is maintainable if the person is aggrieved and applies for leave.
Law Points
- Appeal by non-party
- aggrieved person
- maintainability of appeal
- leave to appeal
- Order 43 Rule 1A CPC
- Section 96 CPC
- locus standi
