Right to Appeal by Non-Parties – Legal Framework and Jurisprudence
Introduction
The right to appeal is a substantive legal right, but it is not unlimited. Generally, appeals are confined to parties to the original suit or proceeding. However, under certain circumstances, third parties or non-parties may be granted leave to appeal by a competent court. This article explores the contours of this principle, particularly in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
General Rule: Only Aggrieved Parties May Appeal
Ordinarily, the right to appeal is available to parties who are aggrieved by a decision. This is grounded in the principle that a person who is not affected by a judgment has no locus standi to challenge it.
In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616, the Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal is a creature of statute and unless provided for under the statute, no person has the right to file an appeal unless he is a party aggrieved by the order. The Court also explained the denotation of the ‘aggrieved person’ thus:
“The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant’s interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant.”
Exception: Leave of the Court for a Third Party
Despite the general rule, the courts have, in exceptional circumstances, allowed third parties to prefer an appeal with leave of the court, especially where the party demonstrates that the impugned order adversely affects their legal rights or interests.
In State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 70, the Supreme Court held:
“There is a catena of authorities which, following the doctrine 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.”
Who Is a “Person Aggrieved”?
The expression “person aggrieved” has received judicial interpretation to include not only the parties to the proceeding but also others whose legal rights are prejudicially affected by the judgment.
In Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy, (1980) 4 SCC 62, the Court clarified:
“Although the meaning of the expression ‘person aggrieved’ may vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, normally ‘a person aggrieved’ must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance…”
Illustrative Case Law: When Third Parties Were Allowed
K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 473
A non-party government officer challenged an order that prejudiced his seniority. The Court allowed his appeal, observing:
“…judgments may not be strictly judgments in personam… they would be judgments in rem. In such a situation, what remedy is available to affected persons not parties to the case?”
Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Sri Ravikumar, (2020) 9 SCC 501
The Supreme Court held that while CPC Sections 96 and 100 do not specify who can appeal, a stranger must show that they are an aggrieved person to obtain leave to appeal.
Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385
Paragraph 46 of the Constitution Bench judgment held:
“…a person who is not a party to a litigation has no right to appeal merely because the judgment or order contains some adverse remarks against him…”
Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd., (1970) 3 SCC 573
The Court affirmed that a non-party may appeal with leave of court if prejudicially affected by the judgment.
Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma, (2003) 1 SCC 34
“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.”
Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co., (1974) 2 SCC 387
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592
Both judgments clarified that psychological or imaginary injury is not sufficient—actual legal prejudice is required.
Statutory Provisions and Their Interpretation
While the CPC and CrPC do not specifically confer third-party appeal rights, provisions such as Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (impleadment) and Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers) are judicially invoked to justify such participation.
Role of the Supreme Court under Article 136
In P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141, a private individual was allowed to file an SLP against an acquittal. The Court held:
“…the words ‘person aggrieved’ are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation… Access to justice to every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension of remedial jurisprudence…”
The Law Commission also supported this view, stating:
“Extreme cases of manifest injustice… should not be left to the mercy of the Government… a limited right of appeal with leave given to a private party should be retained.”
H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, 2025 INSC 121
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a non-party may file an appeal with leave of court if bound or adversely affected by the decree.
Conclusion
While the default rule is that only parties to a proceeding can appeal, courts possess the inherent power and constitutional discretion to allow a third party to file an appeal—if such person is directly and substantially affected by the decision. Such leave, however, is sparingly granted and is conditioned upon the demonstration of real and substantial grievance.
