ABHRAHAM JOSEPH Vs. E.K. KURUVILLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant challenges the judgment and decree in O.S. 36 of 1981 of the Sub-Court, Kottayam. Admittedly the appellant is not the defendant in the suit. He filed I.A. 3752 of 1981 before the trial Court under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. to set aside the exparte order. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of the petition it is stated by the appellant that if the plaintiff intended him to be the defendant the exparte order may be set aside. The learned Sub-Judge held that no order can be passed on such a petition and dismissed it. Thereafter, the appellant has filed the appeal.

(2.) Maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellant who is not a party to the suit is the point that arises for consideration in this appeal. Sec. 96 C.P.C. which provides for appeal docs not lay down as to who can file an appeal. Undoubtedly, an appeal can be filed by a person, if he is aggrieved by the adjudication against which he desires to file an appeal. The appellant who is not a party to the suit could not establish in what way he is aggrieved by the decision of the court. As he cannot be held to be aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court the appeal filed by him is ill-conceived and incompetent. Nor could he satisfy that he would benefit if the judgment is set aside in appeal. There is nothing to show that appellant has any direct interest in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. A person claiming some contingent, Speculative or superficial interest cannot challenge the judgment in a suit where he is not a party at all. If the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, he must positively establish that he is injuriously affected by the judgment. There is nothing to show that the appellant is in any way prejudiced or affected by the judgment. In State Vs. Ram Sri, A.I.R 1976 All. 121 the Court held thus:

(3.) Broadly speaking a party or a person is said to be aggrieved by a decision when it operates directly or indirectly upon his pecuniary, personal or proprietary interest. The appellant could not establish how the judgment directly or indirectly affected upon his pecuniary, personal or proprietary interest. In order to be aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court appellant has to necessarily satisfy that the judgment would cause him some grievance by wrongfully or illegally denying him of any right. So far as it is not shown that he is adversely affected by the judgment against the defendant in that suit appellant has no locus-standi to prefer the appeal. As the plaint clearly shows that relief is claimed solely and entirely against the defendant in that suit and as there is not even any remote reference to the appellant and as no relief is claimed against him even indirectly, he cannot challenge the judgment validly obtained by the respondent on hazy assertions.