Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in this second appeal is as under:--

"Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the first appeal only on the ground that the appellant did not make any efforts for getting impleaded themselves before the Trial Court during the 11 years, when the matter was pending before the Trial Court?"

The imperative facts required for determination of this appeal are as under:--

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the Trial Court.]

1.1. The plaintiff-Sadanand Singh filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction inter alia on the ground that suit land bearing Khasra No. 737/10, area 0.56 acres is owned and possessed by him; and adjoining land bearing Khasra Nos. 737/2 and 3 is owned by respondent No. 2. It is further case of the plaintiff that adjacent to the land of defendant No. 2, there is land of defendant No. 3-Paras Bangani, which is Khasra No. 737/1; and claimed decree for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

1.2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their separate written statements, whereas defendant No. 3 did not file any written statement either opposing or supporting the case of the plaintiff.

2. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree, dated 5-2-2011, decreed the suit holding that plaintiff is title holder of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 737/10, area 0.56 acres of the land.

3. Thereafter, present appellants being the sons, daughters and widow of Amarchand Bangani filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating inter alia that the suit property originally owned by their grandfather late Shri Prathviraj and after his death their father has inherited the suit property. It was further pleaded that since the name of plaintiff s father-Bhavnath Singh is recorded in the revenue records, the Trial Court has decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour. It was further pleaded that after the death of their grandfather Prathviraj, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have inherited the suit property. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 20-9-2012 holding that the appellants did not take any steps for their impleadment during the pendency of suit for the last 11 years and, thereafter, dismissed the appeal.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order/judgment, the instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs, which has been admitted on the substantial question of law formulated as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the First Appellate Court has committed palpable error of jurisdiction in rejecting the application and thereby dismissing appeal, by holding that present appellants have no right to prefer first appeal. He would further submit that though the present appellants are not party to a suit and consequent decree, yet they are entitled to file appeal with the leave of the Court as their interest would be prejudicially affected by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

6. On the other hand, Shri C.B. Kesharwani, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would submit that the First Appellate Court is fully justified in dismissing the application and thereafter dismissing the appeal as the proposed appellants are not entitled to maintain appeal as their interest is not involved in the appeal and their interest is not affected by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of both the Courts below including order/judgment impugned with utmost circumspection.

8. The short question that needs consideration by this Court in