JUDGMENT In this petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the facts in brief may be noticed : Dakhkhobai, present petitioner, as a landlord, filed a suit under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. She sought eviction of the tenant namely Omprakash on the ground that he had sublet the premises to one Pannalal. Pannalal was, however, brought on record on an application having been filed by him, as a party in the suit. The suit filed by Dakhkhobai was decreed. An appeal was preferred against the decree by Pannalal alone. That appeal was dismissed. The decree passed in favour of Dakhkhobai thus attained finality. Thereafter, separate proceedings were initiated by one Sushil Kumar. He filed a separate suit in which he alleged that he was a tenant in the suit premises and that he is not bound by the decree passed in favour of Dakhkhobai. An application seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. An appeal was preferred. The appeal was dismissed. A petition was filed in this Court bearing No. M.P. No. 180/91. This was also dismissed on 14.12.91. After the dismissal of the above petition, an application was preferred by Omprakash in the Court of Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior under Order 41 Rue 21 of the Code. This application was filed in the appeal preferred by Pannalal who got himself impleaded in the original suit filed by the petitioner against Omprakash. Omprakash had not filed arty appeal. The prayer made by Omprakash was that the matter may be heard as he was not served in the appeal. It is on this petition, cognizance was taken by the learned Additional District Judge, Gwalior and he allowed the application so preferred by Omprakash. This was done on 12.1.1993. It is against this order petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Dhakhkhobai. According to her, there is jurisdictional error in entertaining the petition of Omprakash. This is a case where there is total abuse of process of law. Having suffered a decree and having made no attempt to challenge the same, Omprakash wants to make a grievance in the appeal of Pannalal sub-tenant that he should also have been heard. According to her, there is jurisdictional error in entertaining the petition of Omprakash. This is a case where there is total abuse of process of law. Having suffered a decree and having made no attempt to challenge the same, Omprakash wants to make a grievance in the appeal of Pannalal sub-tenant that he should also have been heard. The appeal was to get the verdict in favour of the petitioner, Dhakhkhobai reversed. So far Omprakash is concerned, he allowed the verdict of the trial Court to attain finality. There is no verdict against Omprakash. The dismissal of the appeal preferred by Pannalal would amount to be a decision against Pannalal and not against Omprakash. As such, provisions of Order 41 Rule 21 would not be attracted to this case. A non-appealing defendant figuring as a respondent in an appeal preferred by another defendant cannot contend the dismissal of the appeal is a judgment against him. As such, there was error of jurisdiction in this case. The order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior on 12th of January, 1993 is set aside. This petition is allowed with costs. Costs assessed at Rs. 300/-.