S.K.Mookherjee, J. - (1.)A suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 for a declaration ended with a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that she was not the married wife of respondent No. 2. There has been no appeal preferred by either of the contesting parties in the said suit, but the present application has been preferred on behalf of a lady claiming to be the wife of respondent No. 2 with a prayer for leave to file an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree in favour of respondent No. 1. A Memorandum of Appeal has also been filed which, in terms of the report of the stamp Reporter, appears to be barred by limitation by 9 days. There is also an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.)Since the question of leave has to be decided at the outset and since the authority of this Court to entertain the appeal of the prayer for condonation of delay will have to be necessarily related to the decision on the said question, we have heard out Mr. Bose and Mr. Bhattacharjee on behalf of the contesting parties namely, the appellant and respondent No. 2.
(3.)It is well settled in law that right of appeal is a creature of the statute and is a vested right, which enables a party to a suit to prefer an appeal upon compliance with the required conditions. There are cases where a person may not be a party to the suit, but still may have the necessity of preferring an appeal and in such cases, it is also well settled that an appeal can be filed provided the Court grants leave for the purpose.
;