Aggrieved Person I / The Revival of Ray LI

In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616 this Court held, “The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive concept… 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 expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized [vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 and  State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592].”

Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari, Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Sri Ravikumar, [Civil Appeal Nos. 2701-2704 of 2020].


The locus classicus is the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Justice of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Company, 8 Ben L.R. 433 where Sir Richard Couch, C.J. said, “We think that ‘Judgment’ means a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability. It may be either final or preliminary, or interlocutory, the difference between them being that a final Judgment determines the whole cause or suit, and a preliminary or interlocutory Judgment determines only a part of it, leaving other matters to be determined”.”

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray, Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387.