Delhi High Court Objects To Filing Of Appeal On Behalf Of 'Missing' Person, Says Such Practice Can Lead To Catastrophic Consequences
The Delhi High Court has recently objected to the filing of an appeal on behalf of a person who went missing even before the impugned order was passed by the trial court, observing that such practice, if allowed, can lead to catastrophic consequences. Justice C Hari Shankar observed that an appeal can be filed on behalf of a litigant only if he wants it to be filed and by a person whom...
The Delhi High Court has recently objected to the filing of an appeal on behalf of a person who went missing even before the impugned order was passed by the trial court, observing that such practice, if allowed, can lead to catastrophic consequences.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that an appeal can be filed on behalf of a litigant only if he wants it to be filed and by a person whom he authorizes in that regard.
“On the pretext that the unsuccessful party before the Court below is not available, or traceable, any third party can file an appeal, on behalf of the missing unsuccessful party, behind his back and without his knowledge, and, needless to say, without any authorization from him whatsoever. The rights of the unsuccessful party can, thereby, be seriously prejudiced, and may, in a given case, even lead to irreparable harm,” the court said.
Mother Dairy had filed a suit against one Rakesh Kumar Sharma. The impugned order was passed by the trial court in 2018, ruling in favour of Mother Dairy. An appeal was then filed in 2019 on behalf of Sharma who went missing even before the trial court's order was passed.
“Rakesh Kumar Sharma has, admittedly, never even had an opportunity to see the impugned judgment, much less take a conscious decision to appeal against it. He, therefore, is admittedly completely unaware of this appeal, filed in his name and on his behalf,” the court said.
The appeal was filed by Sharma's sister, who was also his lawyer. She said that had Sharma been available after the impugned judgment was passed, he would have desired to file the appeal.
“This intricate exercise of psychoanalysis of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, undertaken in absentia (as Rakesh Kumar Sharma went missing even before the impugned judgment was passed), cannot authorize the filing of the present appeal on behalf of a person who has never even seen the impugned order, much less taken a decision to file an appeal against it, or instructed its filing,” the court said.
Justice Shankar dismissed the appeal as being “completely incompetent.”
Counsel for Appellant: Ms. K. Kiran, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Raj Birbal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate
Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 208