JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this appeal, the appellant has laid challenge to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 669 of 2006, decided on 25.06.2008, titled H.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. Versus State of H.P. and others, vide which learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition so filed by H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein, upheld the orders which were passed by Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Additional Secretary, Cooperative Societies in the proceedings, which stood initiated before them by present respondent No. 1, Dil Bhadur. 2. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that appellant was not a party in the writ petition, nor was she a party in the proceedings which stood decided by Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Additional Secretary, Cooperative Societies. It appears from the records that respondent No. 1 Dil Bhadur had initiated proceedings under Section 73 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, wherein the relief prayed for by him was that H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. i.e. his employer, be directed to reflect him as having been appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate and not Scheduled Caste candidate, as was wrongly done by the bank. As per the petitioner, even at the time of interview, he had appeared as a Scheduled Tribe candidate and in support of his claim in the interview, he had produced his original Scheduled Tribe certificate also. The prayer made in the proceedings so initiated was to direct the bank to rectify the category of the petitioner and reflect him as Scheduled Tribe category candidate and not a Scheduled Caste category candidate. 3. Vide order dated 09.06.2005, the petition so filed by Dil Bhadur was allowed by Additional Registrar, (Monitoring) Cooperative Societies, H.P. Shimla-09 and respondent-Bank was directed to issue corrective order declaring Dil Bhadur to be a candidate of Scheduled Tribe and correct the office record i.e. Service Book, personal file and seniority list and place him at the appropriate place among the Scheduled Tribe Candidates in the establishment of the bank. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, The H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. filed a statutory appeal under Section 93 of H.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1969. In appeal, learned Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Additional Registrar, (Monitoring) Cooperative Societies, H.P. Shimla-09, vide order dated 25.03.2006. 5. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, The H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. filed a statutory appeal under Section 93 of H.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1969. In appeal, learned Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Additional Registrar, (Monitoring) Cooperative Societies, H.P. Shimla-09, vide order dated 25.03.2006. 5. These two orders passed by the statutory authorities were assailed by The H.P. State Cooperative Bank, Ltd. by way of CWP No. 669 of 2006, titled as H.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. Versus State of H.P. and others, which stood dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 25.06.2008. 6. As we have mentioned above, it is a matter of record that the present appellant was not a party to the proceedings either before the statutory authorities or in the High Court. The H.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. has not preferred any appeal against the judgment so passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have purposely not gone into the ambit of justiciability of the orders passed either by the statutory authorities or the learned Single Judge. At this stage, primarily we are concerned with the fact as to whether in the facts of the case, when the present appellant was not a party to the proceedings below, could she file a Letter Patent Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as she was a stranger to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. In our considered view, the appellant being a stranger to the lis before the learned Single Judge could not have had filed the present appeal. Also we have perused the records and no leave to appeal was sought by the appellant to file the present appeal. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jatan Kanwar Golcha vs. M/s. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. , (1971) AIR(Supreme Court) 374 has categorically laid down the principle that a person who is party to a lis may prefer an appeal but with the leave of the Appellate Court. 8. On a query made by the Court as to why orders passed by the statutory authorities were not assailed independently by the appellant or why no effort was made by the appellant to get herself impleaded as a respondent in those proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Bank was protecting the interest of the appellant. On a query made by the Court as to why orders passed by the statutory authorities were not assailed independently by the appellant or why no effort was made by the appellant to get herself impleaded as a respondent in those proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Bank was protecting the interest of the appellant. In our considered view, this categorically and clearly demonstrates that herein it is not a case where the appellant was not aware of the proceedings which stood initiated by respondent Dil Bhadur. However, rather than taking remedial measures, appellant chose to be a silent spectator/fence sitter. It was only when the Bank in its wisdom did not prefer any appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, that the appellant filed this appeal, which in our considered view, is not maintainable at the behest of a party, who was stranger to the writ petition, without the leave to appeal having been applied for and granted by this Court. 9. In this view of the matter, we dismiss this appeal, reserving liberty to the petitioner to have redressal to the recourse available to her against the orders passed by the statutory authorities, in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s) , if any. No orders as to costs.