The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between necessary parties and proper parties in a civil suit, emphasizing that a proper party is one with a defined subsisting direct and substantive interest in the issues arising in the litigation, an interest which will be cognizable in a court of law.

Counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff submits that the suit O. S. No. 193 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam in which the petitioners sought to get themselves impleaded has been decreed on December 12, 1989. This is not disputed by counsel for the petitioners. The question whether the lower court was right in rejecting the application to implead does not, therefore, survive for consideration at this stage. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground itself.

2. But there is no merit either in the revision petition. The suit is one for recovery of an amount of over rupees thirtyone lakhs from respondents 2 and 3 by sale of the mortgaged properties, which include the establishment where the petitioners are stated to be working. This establishment is a factory "manufacturing" coffee powder. The petitioners are not parties to the mortgage transaction, nor are they liable for the whole or any portion of the amount claimed in the suit. But they sought to get themselves impleaded as parties on the allegation that they are workers in the establishment, their right to work therein was likely to be affected by the sale of the mortgaged properties, including the industrial establishment and therefore, they are proper parties to the suit. Reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Bombay reported in State Bank of India v. Podar Mills Ltd. AIR 1989 Bombay 215, as also on the decision of the Supreme Court in Workers v. Rohtas Industries Ltd. 1987 (2) SCC 588. It must be noted however that the petitioners have discreetly avoided taking any responsibility for discharge of the debt due to the plaintiff. Nor have they put forward any scheme for operation of the establishment or for discharge of the plaintiff's dues.

3. Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon, or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any person, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon, and settle all the questions involved in the suit be added as party to the suit.

4. The rule categorises parties to the suit into two necessary parties and proper parties. The distinction between the two was drawn by the Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786. It was stated that a necessary party was one without whom no decree can be made effectively. A proper party was one in whose absence, an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.

5. The petitioners have no claim that they are necessary parties to the suit. They seek to come on record only as proper parties.

6. A person may be impleaded as a defendant in a suit, though no relief may be claimed against him, if his presence is necessary for a complete and final adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. It is well established that questions involved in the suit are those which arise between the parties to the suit. See Vaithilinga v. Sadasiva, AIR 1926 Mad 836, Somiah v. Amina Begum, AIR 1976 AP 182, among others. Only a person, who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, whether it raises questions relating to moveable or immoveable property, can however be impleaded as a party. Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886. What is this "direct interest" Lindley LJ has explained it in Moser v. Marsden (1892) Ch. 487 as a direct interest in the issues between the plaintiff and the defendant. Only a person who is so interested can be impleaded as a defendant. Lord Greene M.R. has further explained the nature of this interest in re I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. Agreement (1943) 2 All ER 52