ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. VERSUS ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS.

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. VERSUS ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS. - Supreme Court Case 2022

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3703­3750 OF 2022

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD.         …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ALOK KUMAR LODHA & ORS.      …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in this group

of   appeals   and   as   such   arise   out   of   the   impugned

common judgment and order passed by the High Court,

all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by

this common judgment and order. 

Page  1 of  27

2.0. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

common judgment and order  dated 15.09.2021 passed

by the High Court of Delhi in respective applications in

respective Commercial Suits under Order 1 Rule 10 and

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by which,

all the aforesaid applications submitted on behalf of the

original plaintiff, the High Court has allowed the said

applications and has permitted the original plaintiff to

amend   the   respective   suits   and   has   also   ordered

impleadment of mortgagees (Banks), original defendant

no.1 ­ Asian Hotels (North) Limited has preferred the

present appeals. 

3.0. For the sake of convenience, the impugned order passed

by the High Court in IA No.5173­5174 of 2021 in Civil

Suit (Commercial) No.189 of 2020 shall be treated as the

lead matter. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and

to avoid any repetition, facts arising out of Civil Suit

(Commercial)   No.189   of   2020   leading   to   the   present

appeals are narrated, which are as under:

3.1. That the appellant herein granted licenses for individual

Page  2 of  27

shops at the premises from 1983 onwards to various

shopkeepers including the respondent herein – original

plaintiff. On 29.5.2020 the original plaintiff as a licensor

served a revocation of license notice. Similar notices were

also served on other licensees. Therefore, the respective

licensees had instituted the respective suits before the

Delhi High Court against the appellant – licensor – Asian

Hotels (North) Limited seeking a decree of declaration

that the license in favour of the plaintiff in respect of

shop/   premises   is   irrevocable   and   perpetual   and   the

purported revocation of the License by the defendant is

illegal, void and bad in the eyes of law. A decree is also

sought for a declaration declaring that the plaintiff has

unfettered right to occupy and use the said premises /

shop under the irrevocable license till the documents of

transfer / conveyance are executed by the defendant.

3.2. That the appellant – defendant appeared before the High

Court. The defendant raised verbal objection that the

suit   is   not   maintainable   in   view   of   Section   8   of   the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court

Page  3 of  27

vide order dated 21.07.2020 dismissed the suits with

liberty to the parties to avail remedy of arbitration in

view of the arbitration clause in the license agreement on

the verbal plea. The order passed by the High Court

dismissing the suits with the above liberty was a subject

matter of appeal before the Division Bench. The Division

Bench allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter.

Liberty   was   granted   to   the   defendant   to   prefer   an

application   under   Section   8   of   the   Arbitration   and

Conciliation   Act,   1996.   It   is   reported   that   such   an

application   is   filed   by   the   defendant   and   is   pending

adjudication. 

3.3. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff

filed present IA No. 5174 of 2021 under Order 6 Rule 17

of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the

plaint, by which, the plaintiff proposed to amend the suit

challenging various mortgages created by the defendant

hotel, in favour of certain banks. In the said application,

it is the case on behalf of the plaintiff that the mortgages

created   by   the   defendant   in   favour   of   the   Financial

Page  4 of  27

Institutions /Banks are illegal and void ab­initio to the

extent it encumbers the interest held by the plaintiff in

the   said   premises   from   2.9.1991.   Therefore,

consequential   amendments   were   sought   to   be   made

pertaining   to   the   rights   of   the   plaintiff.   By   the   said

application, prayer clause is also sought to be amended

seeking a decree of declaration against the defendant

that the mortgages including the mortgage deeds which

have been executed in favour of the Banks is void and

illegal to the extent it encumbers any right, title and

interest of the plaintiff in the subject premises.

3.4. Another application, being IA No.5173 of 2021 was also

filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure seeking to implead the Banks and the

Financial Institutions as defendant nos. 2 to 7. 

3.5. Both   the   aforesaid   applications   were   opposed   by   the

defendant   on   the   ground   that   (i)   the   mortgage   in

question was in 1980’s; there is no challenge to the said

mortgage in the present suit and therefore, the same

cannot be permitted now; (ii) the plaintiff has no right

Page  5 of  27

against   the   banks   and   financial   institutions   and

therefore, amendment application does not lie; (iii) that

the prayer of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and

rights in the suit property have to first be adjudicated

before any relief can be claimed against the proposed

defendants no.2 to 7 and it is only after the plaintiff is

successful in claiming any right in the property that the

issue of adjudication of the rights of the third parties

would arise; (iv) that in view of the arbitration clause in

the agreement between the parties, the suit is liable to

be stayed for which an appropriate application has been

filed by the defendant, which is pending adjudication. 

3.6. By   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   and

mainly relying upon the decision of this Court in the

case of  Kasturi   v.   Iyyamperumal  &  Ors   reported   in

(2005)   6   SCC   733  and   in   the   case   of  Revajeetu

Builders   and   Developers   vs.   Narayanaswamy   and

Sons  &  Ors  reported   in   (2009)  10  SCC  85, the High

Court has allowed both the applications i.e. application

under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Page  6 of  27

and application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure. 

3.7.   Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   allowing

applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure,   original   defendant   no.1­   licensor   has

preferred present appeals. 

4.0. Shri   Mukul   Rohatgi,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has

appeared on behalf of the appellant­ original defendant

and   Shri   Avishkar   Singhvi,   learned   counsel   and  Shri

Rahul Gupta, learned counsel have appeared on behalf

of the respective respondents. 

5.0. Shri   Rohatgi,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on

behalf   of   the   appellant   –   original   defendant   has

vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and

circumstances of the case High Court has committed a

serious error in allowing the applications under Order 6

Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order 1 Rule 10

Page  7 of  27

of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   permitting   the

respondents to amend their respective plaints to declare

void   ab   initio  all   mortgages   /   charges   on   the   entire

premises and implead the mortgagee banks / financial

institutions. 

5.1. It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   Shri   Rohatgi,   learned

Senior   Advocate   that   appellant   granted   license   for

individual shops at the premises from 1983 onwards to

various shopkeepers including the respondents herein.

That   prior   thereto,   on   23.09.1982   appellant   created

mortgages in favour of financial institutions /banks. The

said mortgages were rolled over, refinanced and replaced

from   time   to   time   for   ensuring   the   continuous

development   of   the   Hotel   Projects   /   premises   which

requires   consistent   upkeep,   renovations,   upgradation

from time to time. It is contended that clause 13 of the

License Agreement recognizes and preserves the power of

the appellant (lessor) to create and continue mortgages.

It is submitted that clause 13 has been retained in every

renewal (every five years) and as such respondents who

Page  8 of  27

are  licensees have  continuously  ratified  all mortgages

from 1982 onwards by signing the License Agreement

and subsequent renewals. It is submitted that licenses

have been revoked on 29.5.2020 by the appellant. It is

urged that at this belated stage it is not open for the

respondents who are only licensees and whose licenses

have been revoked to challenge the mortgages created by

the   appellant   created   in   favour   of   various   banks/

financial institutions which have been continued since

1982 onwards. 

5.2. It is further submitted by Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior

Advocate that as such in view of the arbitration clause in

the license agreement, suits are not maintainable in view

of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.  That

application filed by the appellant – original plaintiff to

stay the suits are pending adjudication. Therefore, as

such   the   said   application/s   under   Section   8   of   the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act are to be decided first. It

is further submitted that while pleadings were completed

and Section 8 application was part­heard, respondents

Page  9 of  27

filed the present applications in April 2020 to implead

the   Banks   holding   mortgage   over   the   premises   and

amend   their   plaints   seeking   to   challenge   such

mortgages. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge

as   such,   without   issuing   any   notice   or   granting   an

opportunity to file reply, heard arguments and reserved

the   judgment   which   has   been   pronounced   on

15.09.2021.

5.3. Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

appellant – original defendant has assailed the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court mainly on

the following grounds:

I. Impugned   judgment   has   resulted   in   mis­joinder   of

causes of action and of parties;

II. Respondents do not have the locus or right to challenge

the mortgages / charges;

III. Challenge to mortgage/ charges is barred by limitation,

delay and laches;

IV. The impleadment and amendment applications are mala

fide  filed   only   to   circumvent   adjudication   pending

Page  10 of  27

Section 8 of the Act;

V. Impugned   judgment   has   been   passed   in   violation   of

principles of natural justice;

5.4. It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   Shri   Rohatgi,   learned

Senior Advocate for the appellant  that when the first

License Agreement was executed in 1983, the premises

were already mortgaged and the respondents were aware

of the said fact, as is evident from Clause 13 of the

License   Agreement.   It   is   submitted   that   thus,   the

respondent’s rights, even as a licensee, are subject to the

pre­existing   charge   perfected   thereon   with   which   the

respondents have no concern.

5.5. It is submitted that the respondents – original plaintiffs

are strangers to the mortgage on the premises created by

and between the appellant and its lenders. Respondents

– original plaintiffs have no privity with the mortgagee

banks/ financial institutions. The suits themselves are

based   on   the   License   Agreement   executed   with   the

appellant and the rights contained thereunder.

Page  11 of  27

5.6. It is further submitted that the suits originally sought

declarations   that   the   respondents   are   irrevocable

licenses   or   alternatively   owners.   Thus,   the   suits

preferred   by   the   plaintiffs   only   concern   the   inter­se

rights between the appellant and the respondent, with

which the banks/ financial institutions impleaded by the

impugned judgment have no concern. But the impugned

judgment   has   resulted   in   mis­joinder   of   parties   and

causes of action which is incorrect in law. 

5.7. It is further submitted by Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior

Advocate   that   the   respondents   have   no  semblance   of

right   to   sue   the   banks/   financial   institutions   in   the

present case or challenge the mortgage. 

5.8. It is further submitted that mortgage over the premises

has been created by and between the appellant and its

lenders. Respondents­ original plaintiffs are not parties

to   said   transaction.   There   is   admittedly   no   privity   of

contract between the respondents and original plaintiffs

and its lenders. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to

sue the lenders of the appellant against whom reliefs are

Page  12 of  27

now sought by way of amendment of the plaint. 

5.9. It is further submitted that, even otherwise, respondents

are ascertaining their status as irrevocable licensees of

the concerned shops.  Therefore, plaintiffs have not locus

or cause to challenge mortgages / charges, which have

been   created   by   the   appellant   from   time   to   time   for

ensuring   continuing   development   of   hotel   project   /

premises. 

5.10. It is further submitted by Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior

Advocate that challenge to mortgage / charges now is

barred by limitation, delay and laches. This is because

the   first   mortgage   was   created   on   the   premises   on

23.09.1982.   By   the   amendment   applications,   the

principal relief sought to be added by the respondents is

to   assail   any   and   all   charges   /   mortgages   on   the

premises created since 1982 in favour of any person. It

is submitted that first mortgage on the premises was

registered on 23.09.1982 with the RoC as per Section

125 of the Companies Act, 1956. Subsequent charges /

Page  13 of  27

mortgages   were   also   registered   with   the   RoC.   It   is

submitted that as per Section 126 of the Companies Act,

1956 and Section 80 of the 2013 Act, the respondents

are deemed to have knowledge and constructive notice of

the   said   mortgage   /   charges   and   there   exists   a

presumption in law that the respondents had knowledge

of the aforesaid charges. 

5.11.It is submitted that clause 13 of the License Agreements

expressly records the knowledge of the respondents of

the existing charges on the premises and also authorizes

creation of further charges in the future. It is submitted

that   this   understanding   has   been   renewed   and

reaffirmed   by   the   parties   in   the   subsequent   Renewal

Agreements.  Therefore, the respondents have knowledge

of the mortgages in view of statutory presumption and

express   stipulation   in   Clause   13   of   the   License

Agreement since 1982, which negates the assertion that

respondents acquired knowledge by pleadings filed in the

proceedings   before   the   High   Court.   It   is   further

submitted that considering Article 58, Schedule I of the

Page  14 of  27

Limitation   Act,   the   prayer   to   challenge   mortgages   /

charges would be clearly barred by law of limitation and

therefore, liable to be rejected. In support of the above

submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this

Court in  the  case  of  Ashutosh   Chaturvedi   v.   Prano

Devi (2008) 15 SCC 610, T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd

vs. T.N. Electricity Board and Ors (2004) 3 SCC 392

and L.J.Leach &  Co Ltd vs. M/s.  Jardine Skinner  &

Co. AIR 1957 SC 357. Making above submissions, it is

prayed to allow the present appeals.

6.0. While opposing the present appeals and supporting the

impugned order passed by the High Court, allowing the

applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure  and   Order  1  Rule  10  of   the   Code   of  Civil

Procedure,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   have

vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and

circumstances of the case.  The impugned order is just

and   proper.     It   is   contended   that   it   is   necessary   to

implead   banks   which   are   mortgagees   of   the   suit

property, while plaintiffs are claiming ownership interest

Page  15 of  27

and that the trial has not yet commenced and the suit is

at preliminary stage where the defendant has even not

filed its written statement therefore, no prejudice can be

said to be caused to the defendant if the application for

amendment   as   well   as   impleadment   applications   are

allowed.  That no error has been committed by the High

Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case.

6.1. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondents that as such the plaintiff is the  dominus

litus in the suit. That in view of the position in law, when

the   applications   submitted   by   the   original   plaintiffs

under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

have been allowed, the same may not be interfered with

by this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of this

Court in the case of  Kasturi  v.   Iyyamperumal  &  Ors

reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733.

6.2. It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   for   the

respondents ­original plaintiffs that cogent reasons have

Page  16 of  27

been   given   by   the   High   Court   while   allowing   the

applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10

of the Code of Civil Procedure, which in a nutshell are as

under:

I. that   it   is necessary   to   implead   the   banks   who   are

mortgagees of the suit property wherein the Plaintiffs are

claiming ownership interest;

II. the trial has not yet commenced and the suit is at the

preliminary stage where the Petitioner has not even filed

its written statement;

III.   no   prejudice   can   be   said   to   be   caused   to   the

Petitioner if the abovesaid applications are allowed;

IV. that the plaintiff is the dominus litus in the suit;

VI. the   fact   that   the   Petitioner   themselves   had   pleaded

before   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Hon'ble   High

Court that the suit was bad for non­joinder of parties

without the banks being parties;

VII. at the stage of allowing the amendment the Court should

not be concerned with the merits and demerits of such

amendments;

Page  17 of  27

VIII. it is imperative that the Hon'ble Courts are liberal in

their view of amendment of pleadings especially when

the parties are necessary and required to be present to

protect the subject matter of the relief;

6.3. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs. K.K.Modi & Ors AIR

2006  SC  1647  and in the case of  Revajeetu  Builders

and  Developers  Vs.  Narayanaswamy  and  Sons  &  Ors

(2009)  10  SCC  84, it is vehemently submitted by the

learned counsel for the respondents – original plaintiffs

that   as   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   while

considering   whether   an   application   for   amendment

should or should not be allowed, Court should not go

into   the   correctness   or   falsity   of   the   case   in   the

amendment.   It   is   further   observed   and   held   that

likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of

the   amendment   and   the   merits   thereof   sought   to   be

incorporated   by   way   of   amendment   are   not   to   be

adjudged   at   the   stage   of   allowing   the   prayer   for

amendment.

Page  18 of  27

6.4. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   no.1   has   further

submitted that the amendments did not seek any direct

injunctions   against   the   banks   for   creation   of   the

mortgage   but   has   only   sought   reliefs   against   the

defendant   hotel   whose   property   is   mortgaged   to   the

banks. That the mortgage has not been challenged by

the respondents but only the undeniable interest of the

respondent   is   sought   to   be   protected   by   having

mortgagees as a party to the suit. It is submitted that

idea   is   to   see   that   in   the   event   banks   enforce   the

mortgage   then   they   will   step   into   the   shoes   of   the

appellant.

6.5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs that in the suit original plaintiffs are seeking

perpetual   ownership   rights   in   the   premises   of   the

appellant hotel. Therefore, if the mortgages with respect

to the very property are not challenged, in that case, in

future they may affect the rights of the plaintiffs and

therefore, to protect their rights, the impleadment of the

mortgagee   banks   /   financial   institutions   and   the

Page  19 of  27

amendments are very much necessary. That as such,

Banks / Financial Institutions (mortgagees) can be said

to be necessary and proper parties for giving the ultimate

effective relief in favour of plaintiffs. That respondents –

original plaintiffs after final adjudication of the suit may

be held to be owners as they are the perpetual lessee

who hold irrevocable licenses executed in their favour to

operate their respective shops. It is submitted that the

plaintiffs have paid the premium at the time of execution

of the License Agreement and hence this is not a case of

mere license but it is a case of irrevocable and perpetual

license. Therefore, no error has been committed by the

High   Court   while   passing   the   impugned   orders   and

allowing the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7.0. We have heard learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respective respondents ­ original plaintiffs

at length. 

7.1. By the impugned orders, the High Court has allowed the

Page  20 of  27

applications filed by the original plaintiffs under Order 6

Rule   17   and   Order   1   Rule   10   of   the   Code   of   Civil

Procedure   permitting   the   original   plaintiffs   to   amend

their respective plaints so as to declare void ab­initio all

the   mortgages   /   charges   on   the   entire   premises   in

question and also implead mortgagee banks / financial

institutions for that purpose. 

7.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that mortgages

have been created in favour of different mortgage banks/

financial  institutions  since 1982  onwards  which  have

been   extended   and   /   or  rolled   over,   refinanced   and

replaced from time to time. The mortgages are created

not only with respect to the shops / premises occupied

by the original plaintiffs, but with respect to the entire

premises / Hyatt Residency Hotel. The respective original

plaintiffs are granted licenses for individual shops which

are part of entire premises. According to the appellant,

first mortgage was created in the year 1982. At that time,

none of the original plaintiffs were license holders. They

have been granted license for individual shops at the

Page  21 of  27

premises   from   1983   onwards   to   various   shopkeepers

including respondents­ original plaintiffs. The appellant,

being owner – licensor, has terminated the respective

licenses granted in favour of respective license holders –

original plaintiffs. The revocation of the license is subject

matter   of   respective   suits.   Therefore,   the   only

controversy / issue in the respective suits is with respect

to revocation of the respective licenses. By way of an

amendment   of   the   plaint   the   plaintiffs   now   want   to

challenge   the   mortgages   /   charges   on   the   entire

premises created by the appellant. As such, the original

plaintiffs are not at all concerned with the mortgages

created   by   the   appellant   which   is   required   for   the

continuous development of the hotel. By the purported

amendment, the original plaintiffs have now prayed to

declare that all the mortgages / charges created on the

premises as void ab­initio. Even such a prayer can be

said to be too vague. How the original plaintiffs can now

can   be   permitted   to   challenge   various   mortgages   /

charges created from time to time. At this stage, it is

required   to   be   noted   that   even   under   the   License

Page  22 of  27

Agreement (clause 13) the Licensor shall have the right

to create charges / mortgages as and by way of first

charge on its land, premises and the buildings (including

shops) constructed and to be constructed, in favour of

financial   institutions   and   banks   as   security   for   their

terms loan advanced / to be advanced to the licensor for

the   completion   of   its   hotel   project.   Therefore,   in   fact

original plaintiffs being the licensee are aware that there

shall be charges / mortgages on the entire premises and

the buildings including the shops. In that view of the

matter, now after a number of years, plaintiffs cannot be

permitted to challenge the mortgages / charges created

on the entire premises including shops.

8.0. The   High   Court   while   allowing   the   amendment

application in exercise of powers under Order 6 Rule 17

of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   has   not   properly

appreciated the fact and / or considered the fact that as

such, by granting such an amendment and permitting

plaintiffs to amend the plaints incorporating the prayer

clause to declare the respective charges / mortgages void

Page  23 of  27

ab­initio, the nature of the suits will be changed. As per

the settled proposition of law, if, by permitting plaintiffs

to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of

the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court

would not be justified in allowing the amendment.   It

would also result in misjoinder of causes of action.

9.0. From the impugned order passed by the High Court, it

appears that what has weighed with the High Court is

that plaintiffs, is the dominus litus and heavy reliance is

placed   in   the   case   of   Kasturi   (supra).   However,   the

principle that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus shall be

applicable only in a case where parties sought to  be

added   as   defendants   are   necessary   and   /   or   proper

parties. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party

as  a  defendant   who   may  not   be  necessary  and  /  or

proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is

the dominus litus. 

9.1. Even   otherwise,   High   Court   has   materially   erred   in

relying upon the decision in the case of Kasturi (supra).

Page  24 of  27

In the case of Kasturi (supra) before this Court the suit

was for specific performance of the agreement to sell and

the subsequent purchasers purchased the very property

for which decree for specific performance was sought.

Therefore, on facts said decision is not applicable to the

facts of the case on hand. 

10. In view of the above and  for the reasons stated above,

High Court has committed serious error in allowing the

application under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 1

Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by permitting

original plaintiffs to amend the plaint including prayer

clause   by   which,   the   plaintiffs   have   now   prayed   to

declare the charges / mortgages on the entire premises

as void­ab initio and permitting the original plaintiffs to

join   /   implead   the   respective   banks   /   financial

institutions as party defendant. The alleged rights of the

plaintiffs   as   perpetual   license   holders   are   yet   to   be

adjudicated upon. The licenses of the original plaintiffs

have   been   revoked.   Therefore,   in   a   suit   challenging

revocation of the respective licenses, the plaintiffs cannot

Page  25 of  27

be   permitted   to   challenge   the   respective   mortgages   /

charges created on the entire premises as void ab­initio.

It is the case on behalf of the appellant that apart from

the fact that first charge was created in the year 1982,

thereafter   said   mortgages   have   been  rolled   over,

refinanced and replaced from time to time for ensuring

the   continuous   development   of   the   Hotel   Project   /

premises which requires consistent upkeep, renovation

and   upgradation   from   time   to   time.   Under   the

circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the High

Court allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17

and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

are unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law. 

11. In view of above and for the reasons stated above, all

these appeals succeed. The impugned orders passed by

the High Court allowing the application under Order 6

Rule   17   and   Order   1   Rule   10   of   the   Code   of   Civil

Procedure   in   respective   suits   preferred   by   the

respondents herein original plaintiffs are hereby quashed

and set aside. Present appeals are allowed accordingly,

Page  26 of  27

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………….J.

       [M.R. SHAH]

……………………………….J.

              [B.V. NAGARATHNA] 

NEW DELHI;

JULY 12, 2022

Page  27 of  27