RAGHU LAL Vs. BABU ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal under the following circumstances. Satnarain Lal and Dewan Lal, defendants 1 and 2, had executed a promissory note on 12th November 1925 in favour of the plaintiffs Arjun Singh and Sarwan Singh. A suit for recovery of the money due on the promissory note was instituted by Arjun Singh and Sarwan Singh against Satnarain Lal, Dewan Lal and five other members of the family who were brothers and nephews of the two executants of the promissory note. The Court of first instance passed a decree against all the defendants. Three of the defendants, namely, Satnarain, Dewan Lal and Jagdeo Lal, presented an appeal to the learned District Judge of Gorakhpur alleging that the appeal was on behalf of all the defendants, but the other defendants, four in number, were not made parties to the appeal. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the appeal of Satnarain Lal and Dewan Lal and allowed the appeal of Jagdeo Lal. He was asked to dismiss the plaintiffs suit against the other defendants also but he declined to accede to the request. Thereupon Satnarain Lal, Dewan Lal, Raghu Lal, Hazari Lal and Baldeo Lal have filed the present appeal to this Court. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal by Raghu Lal, Hazari Lal and Baldeo Lal on the ground that they not having appealed and not having been parties to the appeal before the Court below are not competent to prefer a second appeal. As regards the appeal of Satnarain and Dewan Lal it is urged that no ground has been taken in the memorandum of appeal on their behalf.

(2.) WE have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection must be allowed. In our opinion when one of the parties to a suit is no party to the first appeal, it is not competent for the defendants or plaintiffs who are not parities to the appeal in the Court below to file a second appeal. To permit such an appeal would really amount in effect to permitting an appeal against the decree of the trial Judge. A similar view was taken in the case of Balkaran Lal V/s. Malik Namdar A.I.R. 1921 All. 873. Reference may also be made to the case of Mahmed Khaleel Shirazi and Sons V/s. Les Tanneries Lyonnaises A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 34. WE therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.