{"id":273834,"date":"2022-09-16T15:00:30","date_gmt":"2022-09-16T09:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=273834"},"modified":"2022-09-16T15:00:30","modified_gmt":"2022-09-16T09:30:30","slug":"cpc-misjoinder-plaint-amendment-dominus-litus-legal-updates-legal-news-supreme-court-order6-rule-17-legal-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/16\/cpc-misjoinder-plaint-amendment-dominus-litus-legal-updates-legal-news-supreme-court-order6-rule-17-legal-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Explained| Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Doctrine of dominus litus for amendment of plaint"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Supreme Court<\/b>: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah<\/b>* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., explained the legal propositions governing Order 6 Rule 17<\/a> and Order 1 Rule 10<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code<\/a> for amendment of the plaint.<\/p>\n

Reversing the impugned order of the Delhi High Court, the Court stated that the High Court while allowing the amendment application had not properly appreciated the fact that by granting such an amendment and permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaints incorporating the prayer clause to declare the respective charges\/mortgages void ab-initio<\/i>, the nature of the suits will be changed.<\/p>\n

Chronology of Events<\/b><\/p>\n

The Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. (appellant herein) had granted licenses for individual shops to various shopkeepers including the respondent-original plaintiff from 1983 onwards. The genesis of the appeal relates to the revocation of license notice served on the licensees by the appellant** licensor. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent instituted suits before the Delhi High Court against the appellant seeking a decree of declaration that the license in favour of the respondent in respect of shop\/premises is irrevocable and perpetual and the purported revocation of the License is illegal, void and bad in the eyes of law.<\/p>\n

A decree was also sought for a declaration that the respondent has the unfettered right to occupy and use the said premises\/shop under the irrevocable license till the documents of transfer\/conveyance are executed by the appellant.<\/p>\n

During the pendency of the suit, the respondent approached the Court with an application under Order 6 Rule 17<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code<\/a> (the Code), seeking an amendment of the plaint to challenge various mortgages created by the appellant hotel, in favour of certain banks. The respondent contended that the mortgages in favour of the Financial Institutions\/Banks are illegal and void ab-initio<\/i> to the extent it encumbers any right, title, and interest of the respondent in the subject premises. Similarly, another application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was also filed by the respondent under Order 1 Rule 10<\/a> of the CPC<\/a> seeking to implead the Banks and the Financial Institutions as defendants nos. 2 to 7.<\/p>\n

By the impugned order in Alok Kumar Lodha<\/i> v. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd.<\/i>, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4370<\/a>, the High Court allowed both the applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code by relying on Kasturi<\/i> v. Iyyamperumal<\/i>, (2005) 6 SCC 733<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Observations and Findings<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court observed the following to hold that the respondent\/original plaintiffs being the licensee were aware that there shall be charges\/mortgages on the entire premises and the buildings including the shops:<\/p>\n