Leave to appeal was unnecessary because the appellants had...

Leave to appeal was unnecessary because the appellants had applied for intervention and were parties to the order rejecting those applications; the rule requiring strangers to obtain leave did not apply. Their appeals were therefore maintainable without leave. Intervention in the already disposed writ petitions was nevertheless unavailable: erstwhile directors showed only apprehensions, not a tangible subsisting right making them necessary or proper parties in proceedings concerning defreezing of company bank accounts. Pending disputes did not justify intervention or recall, and final disposal rendered the writ court functus officio, precluding further revisiting of the writ petitions. The intervention rejections and dismissal of the intra-court appeals were sustained, without barring appropriate independent remedies against the final writ order.