SC: Mere saying that appellants are prejudicially affected by decree is not sufficient

The Hon’ble Supreme Court. on 21st August 2020, in the matter of Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy & Anr. etc. etc. v. Sri Ravikumar & Ors. Etc. Etc. observed that mere saying that the appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient. It has to be demonstrated that the decree affects the legal rights of the appellants and would have adverse effect when carried out.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

Section 96 and 100 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. (Para 15)

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 party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court. (Para 15)

The expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized (Para 19)

Mere saying that the appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient. It has to be demonstrated that the decree affects the legal rights of the appellants and would have adverse effect when carried out. (Para 22)

Copy of judgement: Judgement_21-Aug-2020

-Adv. Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *