Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030006562024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/178/2024 Sh. Lalthavela S/o Thangthuama, R/o Kulikawn, Chekbawk VERSUS Smt. Ramengzuali and 2 Ors. W/o S. Beihrosa, R/o Zarkawt, Aizawl, Aizawl District, Mizoram 2:Smt. C. Liankhumi 3:Smt. K. Vanlalhriat Advocate for the Petitioner : Lalbiakthuama Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. P C Lalthangmawia for R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO JUDGEMENT Date : 20.07.2026 Heard Mr. Lalbiakthuama, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. [2.] This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 151 of the Civil Page No.# 2/7 Procedure Court 1908 seeking leave of this Court to file an appeal against the impugned Order and Decree dated 25.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-III, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 40/2023. [3.] It is the case of the applicant that he purchased one RCC building constructed within LSC No. 1025/12/01/514 of 2005 from respondent No.2 Smt. C. Liankhumi on 12.12.2022 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The applicant has paid Rs.35,00,000/- for the building and the balance amount is to be paid later on from his pension benefits. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 is to carry out the necessary paper work for partitioning the said property from the LSC in question. The applicant after purchasing the building in the above manner started residing in the said building. However, he soon came to learn that Civil Suit No.40/2023 was filed by the instant respondent No.1 against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of this application. The applicant also came to be informed that in view of the dispute amongst the respondents in this application, he would be required to shift out from the building. Upon making further query, he came to learn that the Civil Suit No.40/2023 came to be disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.09.2023 on the basis of a compromise agreement between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 06.09.2023. In fact the same came to light pursuant to the Execution Case No.16/2024 filed by the decree holder in Civil Suit No.40/2023. Page No.# 3/7 [4.] The applicant then filed Review Petition No.9 of 2024 before the Trial Court concerned seeking review of the order passed in Civil Suit No. 40/2023 on 25.09.2023 but however, the Review Petition was rejected by the Review Court vide order dated 26.09.2024. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the connected Regular First Appeal before this Court. However, as he is not a party to the Civil Suit, he has sought for leave to file an appeal as a third party through the instant application. [5.] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was never informed by the respondent No.2 about the Civil Suit being disposed of by way of an compromise agreement between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Referring to the compromise agreement, more particularly, point No.5 of the said agreement, the learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2 has entered agreement with the respondent No.1 by withholding the fact that the building was sold to the applicant. Instead the respondent No.2 has stated that the applicant is her relative and therefore she has merely allowed the applicant to stay in her house. The learned counsel therefore submits that there has been misrepresentation of facts by projecting the applicant to be a relative temporarily occupying the building in question and therefore unless the applicant is allowed to file connected Regular First Appeal by way of a third party appeal, he will suffer irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be Page No.# 4/7 compensated in terms of money or otherwise. [6.] The learned counsel in support of his submission has drawn the attention of this Court to the addl. affidavit that he has filed which includes LSC No.1025/12/01/514 of 2005 issued in favour of respondent No.3. He submits that although the land is registered in name of respondent No.3, she has not been taken into confidence while making the compromise agreement dated 06.03.2023. The learned counsel thus submits that the application of the applicant may be allowed as prayed for. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the case of H. Anjanappa and Ors. Vs. A Prabhakar and Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SCC 183 and also the Apex Court decision rendered in My Palace Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh & Ors. The learned counsel has also relied upon the case of H. Anjanappa & Ors. Vs. A. Prabhakar & Ors.2025 INSC 121. [7.] Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand submits that the applicant has no locus-standi to file the instant application since he has failed to provide bona-fide and reasonable explanation as to how he is aggrieved by the order and decree both dated 25.09.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.40/2023. He submits that the respondent No.1 has no knowledge as to whether the applicant had purchased the landed property Page No.# 5/7 covered by the LSC No. 1025/12/01/514 of 2005 from the respondent No.2. At any rate, the LSC of 2025 reveals that the same is registered in the name of the respondent No.3 and therefore, respondent No.2 could not have sold the LSC without being a registered owner. The learned counsel submits that such was the finding of the review Court in the Review Petition filed by the applicant and accordingly, the review petition was dismissed. Therefore, the instant application seeking leave to file third party appeal has no merit and the same should be rejected and dismissed. [8.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record and also the authorities relied upon by the parties. [9.] It is the case of the applicant that he has purchased an RCC building from the respondent No.2 on 12.12.2022 and the same is situated within LSC No.1025/12/01/514 of 2005 which is registered in the name of the respondent No.3. The applicant in order to support his contention has filed an additional affidavit on 17.07.2026 including a copy of the sale deed. A perusal of the sale deed annexed as Annexure-5 to the addl. affidavit goes to show that the purchased building covered by the LSC of 2005 has also been said to be covered by the plot No.108. It therefore appears that while the sale deed was prepared Page No.# 6/7 and signed on 12.12.2022 by the parties concerned including the respondent No.2 as the seller of the building, she had knowingly entered into a compromise agreement with the respondent No.1 who is plaintiff in Civil Suit No.40/2023. Therefore, the very fact of non-disclosure about the selling of the building standing in the LSC of 2005 under plot No.108 and also non-filing of any objection in the instant application either by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 despite notice, prima-facie goes to show that the applicant can very well be the party aggrieved in view of the manner in which Civil Suit No.40/2023 was disposed of by way of a compromise agreement. As already noticed paragraph No.5 of the compromise agreement projects the applicant to be merely a relative staying temporarily in the said building while the applicant maintains that the building was purchased by him, though some balance amount remains to be paid. The Apex Court in the case of My Palace Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh & Ors. (Supra) in the given facts of that case held that a perusal of the Section 96-100 of CPC makes it clear that the provisions are silent about the category of persons who can prefer an appeal. However, it is a well settled legal position that a person who is effected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. In the present case as well, as already noted that, it prima-facie appears that the applicant is affected by the disposal of the Civil Suit by way of a compromise agreement. Page No.# 7/7 Accordingly, upon due consideration, this Court is inclined to grant leave to the applicant to prefer the third party appeal. [10.] In the result, the I.A. stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant