Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (1.50 seconds)Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Smt. Jatan Golcha vs M/S Golcha Properties (P) Ltd on 16 December, 1970
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Rajawat Vs. Dashrath Singh Gujjar reported in (2011) 4 MPLJ 547
which was affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha
Vs. Golcha Properties P. Ltd. reported in (1970) 3 SCC 573, wherein it was
held that an aggrieved person can prefer a writ appeal even though he may not be
the main petitioner in the writ petition.
State Of Punjab (Now Haryana) And, Ors vs Amar Singh And Another on 21 January, 1974
[36] In the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (supra), while dealing
with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is not party to a suit, has
observed that Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the dictum of
Lindley, L.J., in re Securities Insurance Co., [1894] 2 Ch. 410] have laid down
the rule that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of
the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by the
order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it.
M/S.Saraswati Industrial Syndicate ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 10 March, 1999
[23] There is no provision for intervention even in Civil Procedure Code,
which provides for only impleadment of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
There is no provision for intervention in Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
in the Rules of the High Court. It is only a judicial invention exercisable wholly in
the discretion of the High Court and does not confer any right on any person. In
order to maintain an appeal under Section 2(1) of the Adhiniyam of 2005 it is the
duty of the appellant to indicate the statutory provision conferring a right of appeal
on him and not for the respondent to point out a negative provision barring an
appeal as required in the case of an appeal under Section 96 CPC. In absence of
any statutory provision conferring such a right on the appellant as intervener, the
present appeal is not maintainable in law. Reference may be made to the
judgments passed by the Apex Court in (1970)3 SCC 321 N Swain & another
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 24-07-2025
15:23:46
18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18675
Vs. B.K. Mohapatra & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 141 Saraswati Industrial
Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak and (2014)
SCC Online MP 2103 Jeevan Singh Chhatwal Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors. The
same view has been taken by several other High Courts in the matter of
2009(1)MHLJ 786 Vilas Dadarao Chavan Vs. Kiran Ashok Patil
Dongaonkar & Ors., AIR 2013 Pat 74 Shiv Chandra Jha Vs. Harideo Jha and
2023 SCC Online Gau 2243 Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals
Ltd. Vs. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd & Ors.
M/S. Odisha Slurry Pipeline ... vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 13 March, 2023
[13] Shri R.S. Chhabra - learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of respondent No.6
adopted the submissions made by the amicus curiae Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned
Sr.Counsel and submitted that the writ appeal is not maintainable at the instance of
the interveners. He argued that word "intervene' is a prefix "vene" of "intervene"
means that if somebody want to intervene there has to be a pending matter (lis)
in which an intervener can make an application for intervention. In the present
case, neither the petitioner nor the respondent has filed appeal and, therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 24-07-2025
15:23:46
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18675
intervener cannot seek file an appeal as appeal is a creator of statute and no right
has been conferred on a intervener to file an appeal either under the provisions of
Sec.96, 100 CPC or Sec.2(1) of Adhiniyam, 2005. He also referred the various
orders passed by this Court and by the Apex Court in the earlier writ petitions filed
by the petitioners or the present appellants. The Supreme Court has made an
observation that the interveners are encroachers and they have been permitted only
to be heard in support of the impugned order. The interveners cannot be held to be
person aggrieved. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable. It is further argued that
the appellants have no cause of action and the appeal has been filed on
psychological or imaginary injury. To strengthen his arguments he relied on the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of N. Swain Vs. B.K.
Mohapatra (1970) 3 SCC 321 and also referred the judgment of High Court of
Calcutta in the case of Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd. And Ors. Vs.
Rakesh Sharma & Ors MANU/WB/1852.
V.N. Krishna Murthy vs Sri Ravikumar on 21 August, 2020
The learned Single Judge held that there is no power of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 24-07-2025
15:23:46
12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18675
review with the revenue authorities and held that reasons are not mentioned in the
impugned order of cancellation of permission to sell the land in question and also
quashed the entire action taken by the respondents against the petitioner. If the
Single Judge was of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of
the principles of natural justice, he ought to have granted liberty to the official
respondents to pass fresh orders after following the principles of natural justice.
In view of the aforesaid, the interveners are 'person aggrieved' and, therefore, the
appeal at their instance is maintainable and the leave be granted to file present
appeal. To bolster her submissions, she referred the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in (1970) 3 SCC 573 Jatan Kumar Golcha Vs. Golcha
Properties, (1975)2 SCC 702 Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. NV Dabholkar
& Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 155 Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2006) 5
SCC 62 Ravi Rao Gaikwad & Ors. Vs. Rajaji Nagar Youth Social Welfare,
(2007) 14 SCC 102 Ram Nandan Singh & Ors. Vs. AG Office Employees
Cooperative Societies, (2011) 4 MPLJ 547 Anil Rajawat Vs. Dashrath Gurjar
& Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 501 V.N. Krishna Murthy & another Vs. Ravikumar &
Ors., 2024 (4) MPLJ 697 Ambrish, (2025) SCC Online SC 183 H. Anjanappa
& Ors. Vs. A Prabhakar & Ors.