Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.77 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
34. So far as the application under Section 96 of CPC is
concerned, the Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that actually it
is the appellant herein who is the owner of the property as he
purchased the same from Rajnish Kumar who in turn purchased
the property in question from Tamanna Begum wife of Shamshad
Malik/respondent no.2/JD in the present case on 17.08.2016 vide
registered document no.1073, book no.4, volume no.11066 on
pages 131-135 dated 24.08.2016. Rajnish Kumar executed the
power of attorney in favour of the appellant herein. The decree is
going to affect the rights of the appellant herein with respect to
suit property and that is why he is the aggrieved person as he is
having right, title and interest in the property in question as held
in the case of Suraj Lamps Vs. State of Haryana.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
V.N. Krishna Murthy vs Sri Ravikumar on 21 August, 2020
42. Ld. counsel further submitted that leave to appeal is not
just a passing formality or to be given mechanically. It is settled
law that a party coming under Section 96 of CPC has to satisfy
the status of being aggrieved person who could be said to be
prejudicially affected to permit him to prefer an appeal even if he
is not a party to the suit proceedings. Ld. counsel submitted that
in order to acquire status of aggrieved party, such person must
have legal interest and enforceable right which would in turn
allow to question the decree or order by preferring appeal though
he may not be a party to the suit or proceedings. Ld. counsel
submitted that the Supreme Court has laid down the same law in
the case of V. N. Krishna Murthy (Supra) and A. Subhash
Babu (Supra).
A.Subash Babu vs State Of A.P.& Anr on 21 July, 2011
42. Ld. counsel further submitted that leave to appeal is not
just a passing formality or to be given mechanically. It is settled
law that a party coming under Section 96 of CPC has to satisfy
the status of being aggrieved person who could be said to be
prejudicially affected to permit him to prefer an appeal even if he
is not a party to the suit proceedings. Ld. counsel submitted that
in order to acquire status of aggrieved party, such person must
have legal interest and enforceable right which would in turn
allow to question the decree or order by preferring appeal though
he may not be a party to the suit or proceedings. Ld. counsel
submitted that the Supreme Court has laid down the same law in
the case of V. N. Krishna Murthy (Supra) and A. Subhash
Babu (Supra).
Arbinder Singh Kohli & Anr. vs Gobind Kaur Kohli on 4 July, 2018
66. The appellant has also placed on record one more GPA
dated 24.04.2019 executed by Rajnish Kumar in favour of the
appellant. Again in this GPA, no consideration has been paid by
the appellant herein to Rajnish Kumar. There is no other
document executed by Rajnish Kumar in favour of the appellant
herein. Even otherwise Rajnish Kumar himself was not having
any right, title or interest in the suit property and hence, he
cannot transfer any right, title or interest in the suit property in
favour of the appellant herein and he only gets right to work as
an agent of Rajnish Kumar by virtue of this GPA. Hence, so far
as the appellant herein is concerned, he is not having any right,
title or interest in the suit property as GPA only confers right to
act as an agent in the absence of any document. The law in this
regard is settled by the High Court of Delhi in case titled as
Arbinder Singh Kohli and Ors. Vs. Gobind Kaur Kohli
(Supra). Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention of the VIRENDER
KUMAR
appellant herein that he is the owner of the property. BANSAL
Smt. Jatan Golcha vs M/S Golcha Properties (P) Ltd on 16 December, 1970
"15. section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide
for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from
decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not
enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal.
However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot
be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he
satisfies the Court that he falls with the category of aggrieved
persons. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially
affects a person who is not party to the proceedings, he can
prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court.
Reference be made to the observation of this Court in Smt. Jatan
Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. (1970) 3 SCC
573:-
State Of Punjab (Now Haryana) And, Ors vs Amar Singh And Another on 21 January, 1974
41. Ld. counsel has also relied upon judgments titled as Rahul
S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors, dated
22.04.2021 MANU/SC/0333/2021; My Palace Mutually Aided
Co-operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh and Ors. Dated
VIRENDER
23.08.2022 MANU/SC/1030/2022; State of Punjab and Ors KUMAR
BANSAL
Vs. Amar Singh and Anr; Baldev Singh Vs. Surinder Mohan Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
KUMAR
Shamra and Ors; Shriram and Ors Vs. Suresh Kumar and BANSAL
Date: 2023.09.01
17:29:29 +0530
Ors; Prem Singh Vs. Girdhari Dhara dated (19.03.2020 -