On 15th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Jayant Nath, held that when a proposed amendments to a plaint are bona fide then such amendments are necessary and proper for complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. In the absence of such additions to the plaint the plaintiff would not be in a position to get full relief as is being sought.

Facts of the case:

The present suit was filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of necessary and proper parties as defendants. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration that the licence in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the shop/premises bearing No.L-83, Hotel Hayatt Regency Delhi, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 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 was also sought for 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. Other connected reliefs were also sought.

Contention of the plaintiff:

The following contention has been submitted by the plaintiff:

  1. It was contended that the plaintiff through the original allottee paid a total sum of Rs.8.47 lakhs to the defendant in 1991 which was received as security deposit for the said shop/premises L-83.
  2. On 02.09.1991, a license agreement was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant company that regulated the terms of occupation of the plaintiff for the shop in question situated in the defendant hotel.
  3. It was submitted that on 29.05.2020, to the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiff a revocation of license notice was served during the ongoing pandemic and amidst the lockdown. Several other licensees who have occupied the shops for almost 40 years were also served such notices. These notices are unrelated to any alleged breach.
  4. It was contended that the said mortgage carried out by the defendant was not revealed by the defendant earlier.
  5. It was stated that the said mortgages have been created by the defendant without disclosure to the plaintiff despite the plaintiff having substantial rights in law under the terms of license and contemporaneous documents. Hence, it is pleaded that the mortgages created by the defendant in favour of the financial institutions/ banks are illegal and void ab-initio to the extent it encumbers the interest held by the plaintiff in the subject premises from 02.09.1991

Contention of the respondent:

On the contrary, the defendant raised an objection that the suit is not maintainable in view of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Observation and judgement of the court:

The following observation has been made by the Hon’ble bench of the court:

  1. It is settled law that at the time of carrying out amendments to the pleadings the merits and demerits of the proposed amendments are not to be gone into.
  2. It is clear from the facts of the above case that the proposed defendants No.2 to 7 are necessary and proper parties. Their presence is necessary to completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
  3. It was observed that the pleas taken by the defendant in court does not lie for them to plead that the proposed defendants No.2 to 7 are not necessary or proper parties. They cannot be permitted to resile from the submissions made before the Co-ordinate Bench of this court when the same matter was argued in the first round.

Accordingly, the present application was allowed and defendants 2 to 7 were impleaded to the present suit.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Anusree