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