The main legal point established is that in cases involving a declaration of status, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed, and non-impleadment of other parties does not affect the maintainability of a revision petition under S.115 CPC.

1. The revision petitioner filed I.A.42/90 in O.S.923/89 before The Additional Munsiffs Court, Kottayam to get himself impleaded as additional third defendant in that suit. This petition stands dismissed by the order under challenge.

2. Facts relevant and requisite to decide the question, whether the petitioner is entitled to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit, can briefly be stated thus:- The petitioner is the Knanaya Catholic Congress having its head office at Kottayam. The Congress is the only laity and secular organisation of the Knanaya Catholic Community and as such responsible to protect the lay interest of the community at large. The Congress therefore is entitled to get itself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit where the plaintiff has prayed for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue to him the 'Vivahakuri' for the conduct his betrothal and marriage. The facts stated in the plaint in this regard are: The plaintiff is a Knanayite and as such he is entitled to get the "vivahakuri" to conduct his marriage. With that in view he approached the Vicar of the Holy Family Catholic Church but the Vicar refused to issue the 'Vivahakuri'. He thereupon approached the Bishop. The Bishop was also not inclined to provide him with the 'Vivahakuri'. He then made the representation dated 26-6-1989 to His Holiness, the Pope for redressal of his grievances. The plaintiff's father made a separate complaint on 1-5-1989, to the Apostolic Pronuncio of India, New Delhi. Touching upon the reply the father received from the Apostolic Pronuncio of India, New Delhi, the plaintiff has stated thus in the plaint:-

"It is learned that Apostolic Pronuncio, New Delhi after due consultation with Vatican has given necessary direction to the second defendant as follows:

"If Uthup's son is successful in establishing to be a member of the Knanaya community no ecclesiastical authority concerned will certainly not deny his marriage appeal if he requests".

Despite the above direction the Vicar was not prepared to issue the 'Vivahakuri' and the plaintiff therefore was constrained to file the suit.

3. It is clear from the above statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the subject-matter of the litigation, at least incidentally, is a declaration as regards the status of the plaintiff and therefore, unless and until the plaintiff establishes that he is a member of the Knanaya community, he is not entitled to get the 'Vivahakuri'. The petitioner who represents the community will be in a position to place all the details regarding the custom and precedent of the community in regard to the marriage of a person belonging to the community before the court so that the court can effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy, the learned counsel argues.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand contended that since the plaintiff did not have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, the application to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit is liable to be rejected.

5. On going through the pleadings the inference possible is that by adding the petitioner as a party to the case, the court would be in a better position to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy. May be that the petitioner may not be directly interested in the subject-matter of the litigation. That does not however mean that he is not a necessary party to the case. It is relevant in the context to take note of the well established principle that "where the subject matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy". It is also r