Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The contention raised by Sri Saxena is that the appeal filed by the defendant - respondent under Section 331 (3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, is not maintainable and, therefore, the impugned order, being cursory in nature without considering the argument raised, deserves to be set aside. 2. It appears that a Suit filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs under Sections 176/229-B was decreed. The petitioners contend that the defendants - respondents were not parties to the Suit. They filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was rejected. Thereafter, they have filed an Appeal. The contention of Sri Saxena is that the Appeal was not entertainable against the rejection of the said application and even otherwise on merits, the defendants were not aggrieved person. In such circumstances, the objection of the petitioner has been cursorily dealt with while rejecting the said plea vide order dated 17.11.2012. 3. I have considered the submissions raised and I have also perused the memo of appeal, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-4. 4. So far as the first contention of Sri Saxena that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC cannot be filed by a person who was not a party to the Suit appears to be correct but at the same time such a person can always file an appeal provided he/she falls within the definition of an aggrieved person. The defendant can file an application under Order IX Rule 13 in the Suit whereas an appeal can be filed by any aggrieved person. This is the distinction in the scope of these two remedies. 5. Sri Saxena urged that the appeal had been filed only against the rejection of the application under Order IX Rule 13. This submission of Sri Saxena is not correct inasmuch as the prayer made in the appeal, copy whereof is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, is clearly to the extent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2009. 6. Thus, whether the respondents are aggrieved persons or not is still open for consideration by the appellate court which is yet to hear the appeal. In the circumstances, the said opportunity to the petitioners is still available to raise this issue as to whether the respondent Nos. 6. Thus, whether the respondents are aggrieved persons or not is still open for consideration by the appellate court which is yet to hear the appeal. In the circumstances, the said opportunity to the petitioners is still available to raise this issue as to whether the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 fall within the definition of aggrieved person or not. Consequently, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. __________