Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar vs Sunita Devi And Another on 18 January, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
.
Anil Kumar versus Sunita Devi and another CMP No. 902 of 2023 18.01.2023 Present: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. By way of the present application, applicant-Anil Kumar has sought the leave of this Court, to file appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 30th November, 2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur), in Civil Appeal No. 13-13 of 2022, titled as Sunita Devi versus General Public.
Vide order, dated 30th November, 2022, the learned
2. Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur), has reversed the judgment and decree, dated 29 th June, 2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Ghumarwin, and decreed the suit of respondent No. 1 herein.
3. The leave has been sought on the ground that respondent No. 1 has filed the suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act against the General Public, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of Shri Prakash Chand, brother of the applicant. In the said suit, she has not arrayed the applicant as party and adopted a device to file the suit against the general public only.
4. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, that he has filed the objections before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, where ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2023 20:32:10 :::CIS .
-: 2 :- respondent No. 1-Sunita Devi has moved the application for registration of her marriage with Prakash Chand, and the said application has been held to be not maintainable and dismissed, vide order, dated 10th September, 2021.
5. On this ground, the applicant has prayed that respondent No. 1 has not impleaded him as a party in the Civil Suit with an intention to get the relief by impleading only the general public, therefore, the present application may kindly be allowed.
6. It has also been highlighted that although, the suit filed by respondent No. 1 has been dismissed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Ghumarwin, vide judgment and decree, dated 29th June, 2022, by specifically holding that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) has not mentioned the fact regarding the relatives from the side of her husband, which had allegedly raised suspicion over her status.
7. Apart from this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has also highlighted the manner, in which, the general public has been ordered to be served by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur), before whom, respondent No. 1 has filed Civil Appeal No. 13-13 of 2022.
8. To buttress his contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in Civil ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2023 20:32:10 :::CIS .
-: 3 :- Appeal No. 5784 of 2022, titled as My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society versus B. Mahesh & Ors., decided on 23rd August, 2022. The relevant para-30 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:
r "30. Sections 96 to 100 of CPC deals with the procedure for filing appeals from original decrees. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the provisions are silent about the category of persons who can prefer an appeal. But it is well settled legal position that a person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned."
9. Considering all these facts, let the notice, returnable for 23rd January, 2023, be issued dasti, to respondent No. 1, calling upon her, as to why the requisite permission, as sought in the application, be not granted to the applicant. Steps be taken during the course of the day.
10. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above, and in the interest of justice, by exercising powers under Section 151 CPC, the operation of the judgment and decree, dated 30th November, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (Camp at Bilaspur), in Civil Appeal No. 13-13 of 2022, titled as Sunita Devi versus General Public, is ordered to be stayed during the pendency of the application.
::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2023 20:32:10 :::CIS
.
-: 4 :-
11. Objections, if any, be filed on or before the next date.
Authenticated copy.
( Virender Singh )
r Vacation Judge
January 18, 2023
( rajni )
::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2023 20:32:10 :::CIS