S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) A suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 for a declaration ended with a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that she was not the married wife of respondent No. 2. There has been no appeal preferred by either of the contesting parties in the said suit, but the present application has been preferred on behalf of a lady claiming to be the wife of respondent No. 2 with a prayer for leave to file an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree in favour of respondent No. 1. A Memorandum of Appeal has also been filed which, in terms of the report of the stamp Reporter, appears to be barred by limitation by 9 days. There is also an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. ( 2 ) SINCE the question of leave has to be decided at the outset and since the authority of this Court to entertain the appeal of the prayer for condonation of delay will have to be necessarily related to the decision on the said question, we have heard out Mr. Bose and Mr. Bhattacharjee on behalf of the contesting parties namely, the appellant and respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) IT is well settled in law that right of appeal is a creature of the statute and is a vested right, which enables a party to a suit to prefer an appeal upon compliance with the required conditions. There are cases where a person may not be a party to the suit, but still may have the necessity of preferring an appeal and in such cases, it is also well settled that an appeal can be filed provided the Court grants leave for the purpose. ( 4 ) THE principles, governing the grant of leave, are also well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court and in that view of the matter, through a number of decisions had been cited before us, from the Bar, of different High Courts, in addition to the decision of the Supreme Court, we did not think it necessary to deal with such decisions, since we feel that the guidelines indicated by the Apex Court enable us to reach our conclusion with regard to the prayer for leave to file the appeal. ( 5 ) IN the case of Stare of Punjab v. Amar Singh, reported in AIR 1974 SC 994 , the tests, which have to be satisfied for granting the leave, have been delineated as (i) the applicant for leave must either be bound by the order or, (ii) must be aggrieved by it or (iii) prejudicially affected by it. ( 6 ) AGAIN, in the case of Sm. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/c. Galcha Properties reported in AIR 1971 SC 374 , the same principle had been reiterated. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the only ground on which prejudice has been placed is that, in view of the decision, which is sought to be appealed against, the criminal proceeding instituted by the appellant against respondent No. 2 for bigamy may be adversely affected or the applicant may be said to have suffered a prejudice so far as her cause is concerned in the pending criminal proceeding against the respondent No. 2. ( 8 ) WE do not find much substance in the said ground as, incontrovertibly, the suit out of which the proposed appeal arises, is one of a declaratory nature and as such, whatever decision has been rendered therein, the same not having been rendered in any matrimonial jurisdiction, will be binding only on the parties to the said proceeding. In other words, the judgment, which is sought to be appealed against, cannot be said to have the character of a judgement in rem within the meaning of section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act. Again, reading sections 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the judgement in question or whatever findings might have been made therein for the purpose of declaring the respondent No. 1 to be not the wife of respondent No. 2, will be binding only on the parties to the said judgement and no other person, thus, exempting the petitioner from suffering any prejudice there from. It is pertinent to note, at this stage, that some judicial decisions for the purpose of finding out whether a judgement would be binding on a person, though he is not a party to the suit, applied the test of res judicata which alone was thought to sustain a right of appeal. Vide Tarapada vs. Sakhikanta reported in 42 Calwn 492. Vide Tarapada vs. Sakhikanta reported in 42 Calwn 492. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid legal position and applying the same to the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to hold that the applicant deserves leave for filing the appeal. We, accordingly, reject the application for leave and with such rejection, the question about the condonation of delay becomes unnecessary to be considered. ( 10 ) WE, however, keep on record that the point about binding nature of the judgement proposed to be appealed against remains open. If so advised and, if, occasion so arises, the parties may canvas the said point for consideration by appropriate forum, including the criminal forum. There will be no order as to costs. No formal decree need be drawn up. Vidya Nand, J. I agree. Application rejected.