1. This Civil First Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 26.11.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Bhaderwah, in File no. 55/Civil whereunder suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed in ex-parte, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. The appeal came to be filed before this Court on 20th April, 2000, came to be admitted vide order dated 16.11.2000. 2. One Mr. R.S. Kotwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent, made a statement at the Bar on 29.03.2005 that respondent-Hasham Din has passed away. Legal representatives of the respondent came to be brought on record vide this court order dated 08.03.2007 passed in CMP no. 20/2006. 3. Appellant failed to take steps to serve the respondents/legal representatives. However, on 20th April, 2007 Mr. R.S. Kotwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the legal representatives and has filed power of attorney on their behalf. 4. It appears that suit came to be filed by Hasham Din against State of J&K through Chief Secretary, Jammu, Director, JAKFED, Jammu and District Manager, JAKFED, Doda for recovery for an amount of Rs. 53,000/-. Defendants failed to contest the suit, accordingly, came to be decreed in ex-parte. 5. Defendants have not preferred the appeal, but the appeal is preferred by The Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited through its General Manager, who was not a party before the trial Court. How the appeal came to be filed on behalf of a person who is the third party is not forthcoming from the record. 6. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `Code) provides who can file the appeal. It reads thus: - "96. Appeals from original decree- (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. (2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex-parte. (3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties. (2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex-parte. (3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties. (4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees." 7. While going through this provision of law, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that only aggrieved party, who was before the Court, can file appeal. However, if any other person is aggrieved by the judgment, who is not party before the trial court can also file the appeal but has to seek permission/leave to file appeal and has to carve out a case that judgment and decree adversely affects his right. This Court in case titled Mehraj-ud-Din Raina & Ors. versus Muneer Ahmad & Ors., reported as 1989 KLJ, 193 laid-down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para no.8 of the judgment, which reads thus: "..............................A right of appeal is a substantive right and not a procedural matter. This section does not refer to or enumerate a person who can file the appeal. In order to sustain an appeal, it is necessary to show that the party desirous of appealing has the right of appeal and that the court to which he would prefer the appeal has the right to entertain it. As a general principal no one can appeal from a decree unless he was a party to the action or was treated as such, or is the legal representative of a party, or unless his privity in estate, title, or interest is apparent on the face of the record. But a person who is not a party to the action may be allowed to appeal if he is adversely affected by the order, provided the appellate court thinks fit in its discretion, to grant such leave." 8. The same view is taken in case titled as Anant Singh & Ors. versus Nanak Singh, reported as 1992 KLJ 337. 9. Apex Court in the cases titled Baldev Singh versus Surinder Mohan Sharma & Ors, reported as AIR 2003 Supreme Court 225 and AIR 2003 Supreme Court, 1989, titled as Banarsi and others versus Ram Phal, also laid down who can file the appeal. 10. versus Nanak Singh, reported as 1992 KLJ 337. 9. Apex Court in the cases titled Baldev Singh versus Surinder Mohan Sharma & Ors, reported as AIR 2003 Supreme Court 225 and AIR 2003 Supreme Court, 1989, titled as Banarsi and others versus Ram Phal, also laid down who can file the appeal. 10. Admittedly, the appellant was not party before the trial Court and has also not sought permission/leave to file the appeal. Viewed thus, this appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.