IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 17 of 2007 Ram Avtar S/o Jagannath, R/o Village Selakui Central Hope Town, Pargana Pachhwa Dun, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun .……Appellant Versus (1) Sant Lal S/o Sri Ram Ji Lal, R/o Village Selakui Majra Central Hope Town Dehradun (2) Uma Dutt, S/o Sri Bachhi Ram, Both R/o Village Selakui Majra, Central Hope Town, Dehradun ……Plaintiffs / Respondents (3) Bachhi Ram, S/o Tara Dutt, R/o Village Selakui, Majra Central Hope Town Dehradun …… Defendant / Proforma Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, present for the appellant. Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri T. Pandey, Advocate, present for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is an application, moved on behalf of Ram Avtar 3rd party / applicant, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2004, passed by first appellate court (Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court III, Dehradun), in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2002, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, passed in Suit No. 110 of 1991; Sant Lal Vs. Bachhi Ram and another. (2) Heard learned counsel for the appellant / 3rd party / applicant and learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents. (3) Admittedly, Ram Avtar applicant / 3rd party was not a party in Suit No. 110 of 1991. Said suit was instituted against one Bachhi Ram and Uma Dutt. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit the plaintiff Sant Lal filed Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2002 before the first appellate court. The first appellate court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial court, and decreed the suit. The first appellate court has passed the decree directing the defendants to remove the gate / construction from the disputed land which is alleged by the plaintiff to be a Rasta land. (4) Learned counsel for the parties conceded that the defendants Bachhi Ram and Uma Dutt have already filed Second Appeal No. 23 of 2004 against the decree passed by the first appellate court, which is pending before this Court. In these circumstances, when the mandatory injunction is granted against the defendants, it cannot be said that 3rd party / applicant Ram Avtar is the person affected by the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2002 sought to be challenged by him. Learned counsel for the 3rd party / applicant submitted that in the earlier round of litigation he has won the case up to the apex court and as such his rights are affected. This Court does not find any substance in the submission as no direction has been passed in Suit No. 110 of 1991 against the applicant / 3rd party nor is it a decree passed under Order I, Rule 8 of C.P.C., as such it cannot be said that present appellant / 3rd party / applicant Ram Avtar is affected in any manner by the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2002. That being so, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to grant leave to appeal to 3rd party, particularly when the defendants themselves have filed second appeal No. 23 of 2004. (5) Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the applicant / 3rd party, this application for leave to appeal is rejected. The delay condonation application and memorandum of appeal, filed by the applicant / 3rd party also stand dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 29.04.2009 NS