GAGAN CHANDRA ROUT Vs. MINARVA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 20 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack. Said suit was disposed of by ex parte judgment dtd. 17/2/2012 and decree dtd. 25/2/2012. The present Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 10 were defendants in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession. The L.R.s of the present Opposite Party No.1 preferred appeal being RFA No. 164 of 2012 to the Court of learned District Judge, Cuttack along with an application seeking leave to appeal, as the original Opposite Party No.1 was not a party to the suit. Said application came to be allowed by the learned District Judge vide order dtd. 28/1/2020. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Heard Mr. D.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. D.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty would argue that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking, inasmuch as it does not specify the reasons for which the application seeking leave to appeal was allowed. It is further contended that even otherwise, it is clearly borne out from the materials on record that the Opposite Party-appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal as she has no subsisting right over the property decreed in favour of the plaintiff. By no stretch of imagination, can she be treated as being affected by the decree so as to be permitted to challenge it.