1. The above review has been filed by the Latin Archdiocese of Trivandrum, aggrieved by the interpretation of the Canon Law rendered by this Court in the judgment in Second Appeal. The review is filed on the apprehension that "the parishioners of various Churches in different Diocese will become emboldened to adopt a path of confrontation with the Bishops and the Parish priests, leading to unrest and stalemate in the Church administration both in temporal and spiritual matters"(sic.). The review petitioner, a stranger to the appeal, has filed the above review with an application for leave and an application to condone the delay in preferring such review. The suit being one filed under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC), from which the Second Appeal arose; leave was granted. The delay was condoned in view of the fact that the review petitioner was a stranger to the proceedings.

2. Before looking into the review petition it is to be stated that the subject matter of the appeal was a property dispute. The appellants were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were respectively two trustees, the convenor and the elected representatives of the Parish; constituting a committee and they sought to establish the right of the Church over plaint A, B and C schedule properties. As against the claim of title to the said properties set up by the defendants, the suit was filed for declaration of title and possession of the scheduled properties. As noted earlier, the suit was one filed in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of CPC and the Bishop and the Vicar were impleaded as the defendants 3 and 4 respectively. No reliefs were sought against the Bishop or the Vicar nor was any claim made over the properties; in exclusion to the rights of the Bishop or the Vicar. Before this Court, inter alia, question of law with reference to the Canon Law was raised as under:-

i. Whether the plaintiffs independently or together as a Committee or Administrators, are competent to represent the parish and claim rights over the property of the Church, as per the Canon Law; which vests the Church property in the hands of the Bishop or the Vicar and clearly mandates a consent from either of these two personalities for initiating a litigation?

The interpretation of the Canon Law made by this Court in answering the said question has led to the filing of the above review.

3. Essentially, the review petitioner would contend that the suit being of the year 1980, Canon Law applicable would be the one promulgated in 1917, and this Court has referred to the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church as revised in the year 1983. The learned counsel Sri Roy Chacko would specifically refer to the existence and recognition of only two persons as per the Canon Law of 1917, i.e., the physical person and the moral person; while the revised Canon of 1983 postulates and recognises the physical person, the moral person and the juridical person. Though the review petitioner does not wish to upset the findings on facts and also recognises the fact that the land is purchased in the name of the Church; their contention is that the committee comprised of the laity has only an advisory capacity and the parishioners being bound to follow the Canon law, the prescription for initiating a civil proceeding with the prior sanction of the "Ordinary" cannot at all be watered down.

4. The first contention is that this Court had considered the provisions of the Canon promulgated after the initiation of the suit, i.e, of the year 1983; which is inapplicable to the suit filed in 1980. Any apparent error in the application of the provisions of a Canon which was not in force at the time the suit was filed, would enure to the parties to the proceedings and none other, since it would have a direct bearing on the facts. If the contention is that the Canon of 1983 is not applicable to the proceedings initiated in 1980 and what is to be applie