Key Points: - (!) The First Respondent had no locus standi to prefer an appeal against the decree; a third party cannot intrude into privacy of spouses to challenge dissolution of marriage. - (!) An appeal against a decree under Section 96 CPC is maintainable only by a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree; third parties with unrelated disputes lack locus. - (!) Locus of a person to prefer an appeal is vital to protect privacy rights; the third party's allegations do not confer locus to appeal. - (!) The judgment discusses whether it is in personam or in rem but concludes third party cannot challenge based on those grounds. - (!) Ex parte/decree issues: a third party cannot challenge unless aggrieved; bona fides require genuine interest, not ongoing disputes. - (!) The High Court's observations allowing a 3rd party to file an appeal were reversed; third party not maintainable. - (!) The appeals are disposed of with costs in favor of appellant Baldev Singh.

What is the locus standi of a third party to challenge a decree or dissolution in a Civil Appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution?

What is the scope of an appeal under Section 96 CPC in respect of a decree, and who is considered "aggrieved" to maintain such an appeal?

What considerations determine whether a revision application filed by a third party is bona fide and maintainable, particularly regarding privacy and interests of the spouses?