KAVADIA, Chairman, J.–This is an appeal filed under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of R.A.A. Bharatpur passed in appeal no.87/93 dated 13.11.96 by which application presented under Section 96 CPC by the present appellants was dismissing. Leading facts of this appeal are that originally one suit was filed under Section 88, 91 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by the present respondent No.1 against present respondent no.2 to 4 and the said suit was ex-parte decreed by the trial Court on 20.1.93. Aggrieved from this judgment of the trial Court the present appellants preferred an appeal to the Court of R.A.A. alongwith an application under Section 96 CPC for seeking permission to file an appeal against the judgment of trial Court. Since they were not made party by the present respondent No.1 in the trial Court though they were effected and interested parties in the suit. This application was dismissed by the appellate Court by its impugned judgment dated 13.11.96. Hence, the present second appeal. Heard the parties and perused the record. (2). Learned counsel for the appellant argued that subject matter of the suit was old Khasra No.22 and 23 measuring 1.2 bigha snd 1.1 bighas total 2.3 bighas equal to 34 aer which was converted into new khasra No.31 area 50 aers and respondent plaintiff sought khatedari rights to the extent of 50 aers on the ground that though this new khasra no.3 31 measuring 50 aer should have been recorded in the name of present respondent No.1-plaintiff but due to mistake it was recorded in the name of respondents no.2 to 4 whereas new khasra no.31 measuring 50 aer are consist of more than 2.3 bighas of land as per comparative table as well as the present map. In fact out of khasra no.31 area 28 aer vests in the present appellant and rest 32 aer vested in respondent no.2 to 4 and the present respondent has noland whatsoever. Yet the present appellants were not treated by the first appellate Court as aggrieved party and their application under Section 96 CPC was wrongly and illegal rejected by the impugned judgment. Yet the present appellants were not treated by the first appellate Court as aggrieved party and their application under Section 96 CPC was wrongly and illegal rejected by the impugned judgment. The present appellants also submit that the necessary copies of the sale deed evidence the same fact and as such they should be allowed by accepting their application under Section 96 CPC so that matter can be decided on the merits. (3). On the contrary counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment of first appellate Court. (4). After careful examination of the submission made by the rival parties we are of the view that since by producing additional evidence in which appellant has filed certified copy of the judgment passed by S.D.O. Bharatpur namely Kana, Puran sons of Ramkhilai etc. vs. State in this case while dealing petition under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act the Court has come to the conclusion that new khasra no.3 31 measuring 50 aer consists of old khasra no.20, 21 and 22 meaning thereby that original plaintiff Totarams old khasra No.22 and its area was included and not the rest. This order of the S.D.O. dated 1.7.99 was assailed by Totaram through an appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner Jaipur which was also dismissed. Thus it is clear that present appellant are effected by the ex-parte judgment/decree given by the trial Court in this case and prima facie against this when they preferred an appeal before the R.A.A. alongwith application under Section 96 CPC that should have been accepted because prima facie it seems that their rights are effected by teh said ex-parte judgment/decree by the trial Court in which they were not made party because it is cardinal principle of law that in order to be entitled to file an appeal the person must be aggrieved against the judgment against which he is filing the appeal. There is provision for grant of leave under the Code of Civil Procedure which is itnended to meet precisely a situation where a person who is not a party to the proceeding and who is not expressly conferred the right of appeal though not directly, is in fact effected by the decision. While exercisign this discretion in grant or refusing such leave the question whether the person seeking leave was a necessary or proper party to the suit may also weigh with the Court. While exercisign this discretion in grant or refusing such leave the question whether the person seeking leave was a necessary or proper party to the suit may also weigh with the Court. (5). Under the circumstances while accepting the petition filed by the present appellant under Section 96 CPC before the first appellate Court we set aside the impugned judgment of the R.A.A. and remand the same to first appellate Court that after hearing the parties he would decide the appeal presented by appellant on the merits. The parties are directed to appear before the R.A.A. Bharatpur on 30.3.2001. Pronounced in open Court.