A person bound by a decree or whose interests are prejudicially affected by it may appeal with the leave of the appellate court.

1. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment in O.S. 45 of 1958 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum. The suit was for arrears of salary and other emoluments. The plaintiff Raghavan Pillai was a Government Servant working as Melkankanakaran in the Sree Pandaravaka Department engaged in the collection of revenue. On 4-4-1951 the Government passed an order dismissing the plaintiff from service for misconduct. Against this order the plaintiff preferred 0. P. 51 of 1952 before this court. This Court quashed the order of the Government for certain irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to be treated by the Government as if the order of dismissal had not been passed. The Government's appeal against this order was unsuccessful. The plaintiff then requested the Government to reinstate him in service and for payment of arrears of salary. The plaintiff attained the age of superannuation on 3-10-1955 and as the arrears of salary and other

dues were not paid up in spite of his repeated demands the plaintiff filed the above suit on 29-10-1956.

2. The sole defendant in the suit was the State of Travancore-Cochin. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was a Government Servant and that he was dismissed from service on 4-4-1951. The defendant also admitted that the order of dismissal was quashed by the High Court. However, the defendant claimed that a fresh enquiry into the allegation against the plaintiff was conducted by the District Collector, Trivandrum, as a result of which an order was passed on 10-10-1954 dismissing the plaintiff from service as from 4-4-1951 and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any arrears of pay. The learned Subordinate Judge finding that no valid order of dismissal was passed on 10-10-1954 as claimed by the defendant decreed the suit.

3. The defendant-State did not think it necessary to appeal against this judgment and hence the petitioner, the Executive Officer of the Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple seeks leave to file the appeal on behalf of the Sree Pandara Vaka Department. The petitioner's case is that by virtue of the special relationship between the State and the Sree Pandara Vaka Department, though the former collects the dues on behalf of the latter, the Pandara Vaka Fund is kept distinct and the expenses of the department including the pay of its employees are met out of this fund. If the decree is made final the claim of the plaintiff will have to be satisfied by the department and as such it is the Sree Pandara Vaka Department that is really aggrieved by this judgment. According to the petitioner it is the absence of any financial liability to the Government that is responsible for their decision not to prefer an appeal, which decision the Government communicated to the Sree Pandara Vaka Department on 18-9-1958. The petitioner further alleges that the enquiry into the charges against the plaintiff which was pending during the trial of this suit was concluded only after the judgment of the lower court and as a result of the enquiry an order was passed on 17-7-1958 compulsorily retiring the plaintiff from service as from the date of the original order of dismissal, i. e., 4-4-1954 and as that order has become final the plaintiff is only entitled to claim his pension and not any arrears of pay.

4. The petition for leave to appeal is contested by the plaintiff-respondent. He maintains that the petitioner was not a party to the suit and has no locus standi to take the case up in appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the counter-petitioner did not contend seriously for the position that a person who is not a party to the suit can under no circumstances be competent to file an appeal against the judgment of the trial court. There is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code which can be taken as giving sanction to a person not a party to a suit to appeal against the decision therein, but the trend of judicial opinion