Kerala High Court
Knanaya Catholic Congress, Kottayam vs Biju Uthup on 2 March, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1990KER239, AIR 1990 KERALA 239, ILR(KER) 1991 (2) KER 572, (1990) 1 KER LJ 567, (1990) 1 KER LT 640
ORDER K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.
1. The revision petitioner filed I.A. 42/90 in O.S. 923/89 before the Additional MunsifPs 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 of 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 dt. 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 Pro-nuncio 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 Utup's son is successful in establishing to be a member of the Knanaya community no eccelesiastical 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 statements, 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 (applicant?) 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 petitioner as a party to the case, the Court would be in a belter position to effectually an'd 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 hot 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 relevant to note that the result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as in controversy in the case on hand, affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come, and as such the rule of 'present or direct interest' as evolved by case law relating to disputes about property does not apply with full force. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886). The petitioner association, even if it is found, is not directly interested in the subject-matter of the litigation, I am of the view that on being impleaded in the suit it could assist the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy. The petitioner association therefore is a necessary party to the suit.
6. The order dismissing the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., in the light of what is stated above, is not sustainable in law. The same therefore is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent then contended that the revision is not maintainable for the reason that defendants 1 and 2 have not been made parties to it. Non-impleadment of defendants 1 and 2 may perhaps enable them to contend that the order passed in the revision is not binding on them. Assuming that the revision petition, for want of impleadment of defendants I and 2 as parties thereto is not maintainable, even then the High Court can, in exercise of the power under Section 115, C.P.C., suo motu revise the order because the Court below in passing the order has commited an error of jurisdiction. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in Visesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, AIR 1980 SC 892). It is relevant in this context to note that the view expressed by the Court below that the petitioner association is not directly interested in the subject-matter of the litigation and hence not entitled to get impleaded as an additional defendant runs counter to the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Razia Begum's case (AIR 1958 SC 886). The above argument therefore is rejected.
8. The petitioner therefore will be impleaded as additional third defendant in the suit. The petitioner shall file the written statement on or before 8-3-1990.
9. The Court below is directed to adjourn the hearing of the case to 8-3-1990 and to proceed with the trial from day to day till the suit is finally disposed of.
It is made clear that nothing stated in this order would prejudice the rights, the parties are now agitating in the suit.
C.R.P. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
Issue photostat copy on usual terms.