Case Title: Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha
The Supreme Court stated that if the essence of the lawsuit is likely to alter, a court would not be justified in permitting the revision of the complaint.
On the grounds that the plaintiffs are the dominus litus, the bench made up of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna further said that the Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to add any party as a defendant who may not be essential and/or suitable parties at all.
The original plaintiff was allowed to modify the separate actions in this matter by the High Court of Delhi under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which also mandated the inclusion of mortgagees (Banks). The plaintiffs in the lawsuit requested a ruling declaring that the licence in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the shop or premises is irreversible and permanent and that the defendant's putative licence revocation is unlawful, null, and contrary to law. Additionally, a decree was requested for a declaration that the plaintiff has the unrestricted right to occupy and use the aforementioned premises/business pursuant to the irrevocable licence until the defendant executes the transfer/conveyance paperwork. The plaintiff wanted to modify the lawsuit contesting numerous mortgages made by the hotel defendant in favour of specific banks.
The appellant challenged these rulings, claiming that the impleadment and modification petitions were maliciously submitted in an effort to avoid adjudication while Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was still in effect. Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Court should not worry about the virtues and demerits of such revisions at the stage of approving them. The Apex Court bench pointed out that the High Court, in exercising its authority under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had not properly appreciated and/or taken into account the fact that, as a result, by granting such an amendment and allowing plaintiffs to amend the complaints to include a prayer clause to declare the relevant charges/mortgages void ab initio, the nature of the suits would 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 a misjoinder of causes of action...
..The principle that the plaintiffs are 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 are the dominus litus."
The court decided that the plaintiffs cannot declare the various mortgages or charges placed on the entire property as void ab initio in a lawsuit contesting the cancellation of the corresponding licences.