JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh in R.F.A. No. 20 of 2006 rejecting the application for leave to appeal. 2. Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.17 of 2004 in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Khandapara for declaration of right, title and interest and for permanent injunction impleading opposite party no.2 as defendant. Lalita Singh Samanta, mother of the petitioner, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party. The same was rejected. Subsequently another application was filed to recall the said order. The same was also rejected. While the matter stood thus, the suit was decreed on 3.4.2006. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2006, she filed an appeal, being R.F.A. No.20 of 2006, before the learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh. Since she was not a party to the suit, she filed an application seeking leave to file appeal. It is stated that the property would be damaged by the plaintiff and she will suffer irreparable loss. Further in Revenue Misc.Case No.26 of 52-53 share has been allotted. But the plaintiff obtained the decree by fabricating the facts. The plaintiff filed objection to the same. It is stated that mother of the petitioner had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impladed as a party. The application was rejected on 9.3.2006. The said order was not challenged. Thus, the same had attained finality. Further she had instituted C.S. No. 49 of 2004 in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Khandapara, which was withdrawn by her on 20.3.2006. She filed Civil Suit No.30 of 2006 in the same court in respect of the suit land against him. The learned appellate court came to hold that the impugned decree is not absolute for having subjected to further appraisal and reconsideration by the Board of Revenue or other concerned authorities. The petitioner had not chosen to challenge the order rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Moreover, she has already filed C.S. No.32 of 2006 against opposite party no.1. Held so, the learned appellate court rejected the application. The said order is impugned in this petition. The petitioner had not chosen to challenge the order rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Moreover, she has already filed C.S. No.32 of 2006 against opposite party no.1. Held so, the learned appellate court rejected the application. The said order is impugned in this petition. During pendency of the petition, the original petitioner died and in her place, the present petitioner, her son, has been substituted. 3. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mother of the petitioner was not a party to the suit. She is essentially aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Thereafter she filed an application for leave to file appeal. The learned appellate court committed a manifest illegality in rejecting the said application. 5. Per contra, Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 supported the order passed by the appellate court. He submitted that the application filed by the mother of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party to the suit was rejected by the learned trial court. She had not chosen to challenge the same. Thus the said order has attained finality. In view of the same, the learned appellate court is quite justified in rejecting the application for leave to file appeal. He further submitted that the order of rejection of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. would operate as res judicata. 6. The sole question that hinges for consideration of this Court is as to whether the learned appellate court is justified in rejecting the application of the mother of the petitioner for grant of leave to file appeal on the ground that earlier application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial court. 7. The expression of ‘appeal’ has not been defined in C.P.C.. Eighty years back the five Judges Bench of the Privy Council in Nagendra Nath Dey Vs. 7. The expression of ‘appeal’ has not been defined in C.P.C.. Eighty years back the five Judges Bench of the Privy Council in Nagendra Nath Dey Vs. Suresh Chandra Dey, AIR 1932 PC 165 speaking through Sir Dinshaw Mulla proclaimed that there is no definition of appeal in the Code of Civil Procedure, but there is no doubt that any application by a party to an appellate Court, asking it to set aside or revise a decision of a subordinate Court, is an appeal within the ordinary acceptation of the term, and that it is no less an appeal because it is irregular or incompetent. 8. A party to a suit adversely affected by a decree or any of his representatives-in-interest may file an appeal. But a person who is not a party to a decree or order may, with the leave of the court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by a decree or order or is aggrieved by it or is otherwise prejudicially affected by it. 9. In Adi Pherozshah Gandhi Vs. H.M. Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in paragraph-46 held thus:- “46. Generally speaking, a person can be said to be aggrieved by an order which is to his detriment, pecuniary or otherwise or causes him some prejudice in some form or other. A person who is not a party to a litigation has no right to appeal merely because the judgment or order contains some adverse remarks against him. But it has been held in a number of cases that a person who is not a party to suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court and such leave would not be refused where the judgment would be binding on him under Explanation 6 to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 10. In Smt. Sukhrani (dead) by L.R’s and others, Vs. Hari Shanker and others, AIR 1979 SC 1436 , the interlocutory order was not challenged. The same was challenged after final order was passed by the Court. The apex Court in paragraph-5 of the report held thus:- “5. In Smt. Sukhrani (dead) by L.R’s and others, Vs. Hari Shanker and others, AIR 1979 SC 1436 , the interlocutory order was not challenged. The same was challenged after final order was passed by the Court. The apex Court in paragraph-5 of the report held thus:- “5. It is true that at an earlier stage of the suit, in the proceeding to set aside the award, the High Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek reopening of the partition on the ground of unfairness when there was neither fraud nor misrepresentation. It is true that the plaintiff did not further pursue the matter at that stage by taking it in appeal to the Supreme Court but preferred to proceed to the trial of his suit. It is also true that a decision given at an earlier stage of a suit will bind the parties at later stages of the same suit. But it is equally well settled that because a matter has been decided at an earlier stage by an interlocutory order and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a higher Court is not precluded from considering the matter again at a later stage of the same litigation”. 11. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the instant case may be examined. Admittedly, the application filed by the mother of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as party to the suit was rejected by the learned trial court. The said order was not challenged. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the cases cited supra, the conclusion is irresistible that rejection of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is per se not a ground to reject the application for leave to file appeal. The appellate court has to see as to whether the petitioner is aggrieved by a decree or is otherwise prejudicially affected by it. The appellate court has to examine that if the decree is allowed to stand, the same will operate res judicata. Subsequent filing of the suit by the petitioner for the self-same property cannot be a ground to reject the application. 12. In the wake of aforesaid, the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh in R.F.A. No. 20 of 2006 is quashed. Subsequent filing of the suit by the petitioner for the self-same property cannot be a ground to reject the application. 12. In the wake of aforesaid, the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh in R.F.A. No. 20 of 2006 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned appellate court to decide the application afresh keeping in view the principles enunciated above. 13. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.