IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.508 of 2011 RATNA SAHAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 11-04-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant in respect of three Interlocutory Applications through which the appellant sought leave to appeal on the ground that she was a necessary party but not impleaded in the writ petition and the judgement and order under appeal adversely affects her interest. The other I.A. is seeking condonation of delay of 183 days on the ground that being not made a party the appellant was not aware of the judgement under appeal. The 3rd I.A. is seeking stay of the judgement and order under appeal. Considering the main argument that the appellant was not made a party in the writ proceeding and that she is adversely affected by the final judgement and order which has been challenged in this appeal, we are of the view that such a grievance should be raised by the appellant before the court concerned by preferring a writ petition seeking review of the order or by filing a review petition itself. If that is done then grievance of the 2 appellant shall be considered by the learned Single Judge hearing the matter and the appellate forum will be available to the appellant if the issue is decided against her. In that view of the matter, there is no necessity of issuing notice in the Limitation Application or in the other Interlocutory Applications. The Interlocutory Applications as well as the appeal are disposed of with liberty to the appellant that she may prefer a writ petition or a review petition against the order under appeal and if this is done, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. We must clarify that we have not heard the appellant on merits; therefore, we are not in a position to make any observation on merits. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)