ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri C.R. Roman, Advocate for the Respondents. Shri J.D. Suryavanshi, Govt. Advocate for State. Heard counsel. A suit was filed by Babulal, Banwarilal, Swaraj Prakash, Kanchanbai and Prembai. The suit was decreed. The main plea taken was that the predecessor of the Plaintiffs had never donated the land to the Bhudan Yagya Board, therefore, the patta given by the Bhudan Yagya Board to the present Appellant, Kalua, was bad. As stated above, the suit was decreed. Against the judgment and decree so passed, the State preferred an appeal. During the pendency of that, Babulal, the Plaintiff died. An application for bringing his legal heirs was filed. It was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Babulal died on 4th of February, 1994. An application for bringing his legal heirs in terms of Order XXII, Rule 4 of the CPC Code, was filed on 21-4-1995. On account of the delay which was more than a year, the State appeal was dismissed as having been abated. Against the order by which the appeal was dismissed as having abated, the State has not preferred an appeal but Kaluva in whose favour the patta was issued by Bhudan Yagya Board has preferred an appeal. The heirs of Babulal have been brought on the record. An argument has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that Kalua cannot file this appeal. This argument cannot be accepted. It be seen that under Order XLI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a party who has not filed the first appeal has been given a right to prefer further appeal. Apart from this, reliance can be placed on the decision reported as State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Ram Sri and Another, . In the above case, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a party whose interest is likely injuriously affected by the judgment can file an appeal. The reasoning given was that a person who is likely to be in disadvantageous position can fall within the definition of the term 'person aggrieved'. In the present case Kalua is likely to lose his land in case he is not heard on merits. As such, Kalua can maintain an appeal. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is rejected. In the present case Kalua is likely to lose his land in case he is not heard on merits. As such, Kalua can maintain an appeal. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is rejected. The question as to whether the delay in the matter of bringing legal heirs was such which could not be condoned be examined. The Supreme Court of India in number of cases has observed that where the State is a litigant, a liberal approach can be adopted. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Shri J.D. Suryavanshi, Advocate appearing for the State submits that so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, he is supporting the argument advanced by Kalua and the delay in the matter of bringing legal heirs of Babulal should have been condoned. As such, the delay in bringing the legal heirs of Babulal is condoned. The Court below would decide the appeal on merits. This appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above.