REVEIRA INSTITUTE Vs. MANTRI REAL ESTATE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Chamber Summons for carrying out certain amendments in the Plaint. The amendments have arisen for 2 purposes : (i) to bring a new party (Respondent) on record as Defendant No.6 and (ii) to amend certain averments in the Plaint. The Suit, as initially filed, was between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 alone. The Suit was filed upon a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties for development of the suit property. Defendant No.1 was to make out a marketable title. Two certificates of certain Advocates were produced. The Plaintiff was not satisfied with the marketability of the title of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff sought to cancel the contract and sought refund the earnest amount. The Plaintiff has also also sought to create a charge on the suit property under the provisions of Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(2.) Defendant Nos.2 to 5 claim to have title to the suit property.

(3.) In view of these facts, Defendant No.6 becomes a proper party to the Suit as the reliefs, if any, which would be passed in favour of the Plaintiff, would have to be passed after considering the interest shown by Defendant No.6. In the interest of Defendant No.6 itself, Defendant No.6 has to be brought on record. The Respondent, though served, has not appeared and challenged this Application. Consequent upon bringing the Respondent on record as Defendant No.6, consequential amendments to show who precisely Respondent No.6 is, would also have to be made in the Plaint. Consequential amendments are sought to be made at the end of paragraph 2 of the Plaint. Hence adding the Respondent as Defendant No.6 in making consequential amendments with regard thereto would have to be allowed.