Non-impleadment of real aggrieved parties made the appeals incompetent and led to dismissal.

Appeals against orders granting exemption to purchasers were held incompetent because the purchasers, who were the real persons aggrieved, were not impleaded. The proceedings had in substance been filed and prosecuted on their behalf, yet notice was issued only to the respondent and not to the purchasers whose rights were directly affected. Their absence went to the root of competence, and the question of adding them at a late stage did not arise. The appeals were therefore dismissed for non-impleadment of the purchasers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals were maintainable against the respondent without impleading the purchasers, when the orders appealed against were in favour of the purchasers.

Analysis: The appeals before the lower appellate authority were in substance filed and prosecuted on behalf of the purchasers, and the benefit of the exemption notification had been allowed to them. In the present proceedings, notice was issued only to the respondent and not to the purchasers, although the impugned orders affected the purchasers and not the respondent. Since the real persons aggrieved were the purchasers, their absence from the proceedings went to the root of competence and the question of impleading them at this distant stage did not arise.

Conclusion: The appeals were incompetent for non-impleadment of the purchasers and were dismissed.

---