SARASWATI DEVI GUPTA Vs. SUDHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by Special Leave is directed, against the Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Review Petition No. 64773 of 1996 dated. 22.7.1999 whereby the High Court summarily dismissed, the Review Petition preferred by the appellant herein. By its Order dated. August 30, 1996 the High Court had. directed, the Executing Court to entertain and. decide the question as to whether a valid assignment of the decree had been made in favour of the appellant/assignee.

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly recapitulated: Suit No. 23 of 1972 was filed by one Raghu Nath Prasad for specific performance of an agreement to sell the house in question. Shamsher Bahadur was the defendant, in the said suit. The suit was dismissed by the Trial court, but on appeal, by its judgment dated 7th April, 1975 the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and ordered specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiff Raghu Math Prasad, the decree holder died on 1st September, 1979. Thereafter, by Order dated 20th November, 1980 the legal representatives of the said Raghu Nath Prasad were brought on record as also the assignee, the appellant herein, since she claimed that the late Raghu Nath Prasad had assigned his interest in the decree in her favour. A Second Appeal was preferred by the defendant against the judgment of the Appellate Court decreeing the suit for specific performance and the said Second Appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated 5.7.1982. Thus the decree of specific performance was set aside and the order of the Trial Court dismissing the suit was restored. After the judgment and order of the High Court, the legal representatives of Raghu Nath Prasad who had been brought on record, did. not take any further interest in the matter and did not even challenge the judgment and. order of the High Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff Raghu Nath Prasad. Only the assignee namely, the appellant, came up by way of appeal to this Court. By judgment and order dated 10th February, 1989 this Court allowed the appeal. This Court held that the High Court was in error in dismissing the suit for specific performance. The appeal was allowed.

(3.) At that stage a contention was advanced before this Court that the appellant, who was the transferee from the decree holder, had no locus standi to prefer the appeal. This Court noticed that when the appellant (assignee), had made an application before the High Court for being joined as a respondent, the High Court had passed an order to the effect that the applicant be brought on record as a respondent in the appeal, but it would be open to the appellant (before the High Court) to raise such objections as they would like about the locus standi of the applicant qua the controversy which had to be decided in the appeal, at the time of final hearing. This Court noticed that despite the liberty given to raise objections as to the locus standi of the assignee, no such objection was raised. This Court observed. :