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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर