( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2424 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 1250 OF 2009 Rawindranath s/o Baliram More APPLICANT VERSUS Annapurna w/o Baliram More and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. H.V. Patil, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.S. Kudale, advocate for respondents No. 1, 2 and 6. Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, advocate for respondent No. 7. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The application is for seeking leave to appeal because allegedly the applicant was not party to the suit or the appeal. The appeal was decided in terms of compromise. The appellant challenges the compromise decree on the ground that his interest is affected. 3. Since the applicant/appellant is aggrieved ( 2 ) party, leave is granted. 4. The appeal preferred by the appellant be enlisted for admission and the same will be considered on its own merits regarding maintainability as well the right to appeal. S.O. to 27th November, 2009. 5. The civil application is accordingly disposed of. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca2424­09