BALDEV SINGH versus SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA AND ORS

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 01-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

BALDEV SINGH 
A 
-~~ 
v. 
SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA AND ORS 
NOVEMBER I, 2002 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908--Section 96-Appeal-Locus to file-
Scope of-Property dispute between parties-In Court proceedings one party 
stating that he had two wives-Other party complaining of bigamy to the c 
employers of the husband and second wife--Suit of first wife decreed declaring 
the first marriage to have been dissolved-Appeal against the decree by 
complainant-Permissibility of-Held, not permissible as the complainant had 
no locus standi to file appeal-He being a third party had nothing to do with 
relationship of the party litigant and his first wife-Appeal maintainable only D 
at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment 
and decree. 
During Court proceedings in respect of a dispute regarding property 
between appellant and respondent No.I, appellant deposed that he ha<I 
two wives. On the basis of his statement, respondent No.I made complaints E 
to the respective employers of the appellant and his second wife for having 
married second time while first wife was living. Proceedings were initiated. 
First wife filed a suit on the ground that her marriage was dissolved with 
the appellant by reason of a memorandum of customary dissolution of 
marriage. The suit was decreed declaring the marriage to have been 
dissolved. 
F 
Respondent No. I filed a revision application before High Court, 
wherein he was permitted to file appeal against the order in suit filed by 
the first wife of appellant. 
In appeal to this Court, the question for consideration was whether G 
Respondent No. I had locus-standi to question the judgment in the suit 
filed by first wife of the appellant. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Respondent No.I herein cannot be said to have any locus H 
'' 
43 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20021 SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A standi to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the 
~-.. 
Civil Judge. As a logical corollary of the said finding, it must necessarily 
be held that the single Judge of the High Court was not correct in disposing 
the civil revision petition by making an observation which affected the 
interest of the appellant and that too without giving an opportunity of 
B 
hearing to him. (50-D-EI 
2. Against a decree, an appeal would be maintainable in terms of 
Section 96 C.P.C. Such an appeal, however, would be maintainable only 
at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment 
and decree. In the instant :ase, the dispute between the parties was in 
c relation to a property. The first Respondent, save and except, inter alia, 
making complaints against the appellant and his wife to their respective 
employers purported to be relying on or on the basis of the statements 
made by the appellant had nothing to do with the status of the first wife 
of the appellant. 
D 
3. The first respondent in relation to his disputes with the appellant 
herein has been pursuing his remedies in appropriate proceedings. What 
would be the effect of the said judgment and decree in a departmental 
proceeding is required to be determined by the appropriate authorities. Only 
because a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant on 
the complaint of respondent No.1, he, only thereby, cannot be said to have 
E any locus to prefer an appeal. A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be 
one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to 
be impugned. It is not the contention of respondent No.1 that in the event 
the said judgment and decree is allowed to stan.d, the same will cause any 
personal injury to him or shall affect his interest otherwise. Dissolution of 
F marriage of the appellant and his first wife would also have no 
representation on the property in suit. The effect of the statements made 
by the appellant in the second suit shall have to be considered by the courts 
and the departments concerned on their own merits. (49-H; 50-A-CI 
4. 'Locus' of a person to prefer an appeal in a matter of the nature 
G in the instant case is vital as the right of privacy of two spouses would be 
interfered thereby. The Court cannot enlarge the scope of 'locus' in a case 
of this nature where the parties are fighting litigations. Allegations made 
by the first respondent in his revision application does not disclose any 
cause of action for maintaining the said applicat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.