M/S. DURGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD v. SRI SAHADEVA KRISHNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL

(BY SRI JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI SAHADEVA KRISHNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. SMT. VARALAKSHMI .C (WIFE), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4562 WP No. 2919 of 2024

SRI YATHISH S (SON), AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

SRI PRUTHVISH S @ PRAJWAL (SON), AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT MANJUNATHA TOURS AND TRAVELS, MAHESHWARI NAGAR, B B ROAD, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064.

SMT. N NAGAVENI, W/O P RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.4/1, 6TH MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 003. SRI NARASIMHAIAH @ MARIYANNA, S/O LATE SRI SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

SRI NARASIMHAIAH @ RAJA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

SRI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

SRI CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

9. SRI PADMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. SRI RUKMINI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. R/AT MAHESHWARINAGAR, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, B.B.ROAD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4562 WP No. 2919 of 2024 BENGALURU-560 064.

10. M/S. ADITRRI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.106/89/2/8, AMRUTHNAGAR, AMRUTHNAGAR MAIN ROAD, NEAR SHARADA SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560 092. (REGISTERED WITH REGITRARS OF FIRMS) REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI KEMPARAJA K M, S/O MUDDA HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS IS: R/AT NO.4, KARIAPURAPALYA, BYATHA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 089. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNITHA H SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-9; NOTICE TO R-10 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 25.01.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24TH NOVEMBER 2023 (OLD NO. 499/2016) VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN COMMERCIAL O.S.NO.576/2021 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION UNDER DATED 11.8.2023, UNDER ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4562 WP No. 2919 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by plaintiff challenging the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the XI Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Com. O.S.No.576/2021 whereby application filed by the plaintiff for amendment is rejected.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking direction the defendants to sign the Joint Development Agreement in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.12.2011, 01.04.2013 and 14.05.2012 and also for a direction to the defendants not to obstruct the plaintiff from carrying out construction work in the schedule property.

3. After service of summons, defendants filed their written statement and taken the contention that there is delay on the part of the plaintiff to complete the project as per the Memorandum of Understanding and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought in the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4562 WP No. 2919 of 2024

4. After the written statement is filed, the plaintiff filed I.A.17 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought in the plaint, alternatively to seek for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.10 crores which was invested in the project.

5. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the alternative prayer sought for by the petitioner would change the nature of the suit.

6. Heard Sri. Janardhana G, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of respondents though the matter was called on two occasions.

7. The prayer sought for by the plaintiff in the suit is as follows: "i) direct the Defendants to sign the Joint Development Agreement in terms of the MoUs on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4562 WP No. 2919 of 2024

04.12.2011, 01.04.2013 and 14.05.2012 and also execute a power of attorney; ii) further direct the Defendants not to obstruct the Plaintiff from going on with the construction on the schedule property; And iii) grant any other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. "

It is noticed that after the defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has not fulfilled the conditions as per the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.12.2011,

01.04.2013 and 14.05.2012 and there is delay on the part of the defendants in completing the project and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought in the suit.

The amendment sought for by the plaintiff is only an alternative prayer seeking for a direction to the defendants to refund the amount which was invested in the project, in case the Court were to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the main - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4562 WP No. 2919 of 2024 relief sought. If this amendment is allowed, the same would not change the nature of suit. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.