21 February 2024 Fundamental Rights of Citizen >> Civil & Consumer Law  

Background:

The impugned order, passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) against Sharma, remained unseen by him due to his disappearance prior to its issuance.

The Appeal:

Ms. Kiran, purporting to act on Sharma's behalf, filed an appeal challenging the ADJ's order. However, the appeal suffered from critical deficiencies:

• Absence of Standing: The appeal lacked Sharma's signature, rendering his standing in the matter questionable.
• Missing Vakalatnama: No Vakalatnama, a legal document authorizing Ms. Kiran's representation, was presented.
• Unawareness of Judgment: The court highlighted the fundamental issue – Sharma, being missing before the judgment, could not have been aware of its content or expressed a desire to appeal.

Court's Reasoning:

The court emphasized the principle that appeals can only be filed by a party with knowledge and consent, or by a duly authorized representative. Allowing appeals on behalf of missing individuals, without their express authorization, could lead to "catastrophic consequences" and prejudice their legal rights.

Conclusion:

The court deemed the appeal "completely incompetent" and dismissed it. As a consequence, three related applications became moot and were disposed of.