M/S MADHUBAN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. NONE

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. K S S RAJAN Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK R. S., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

#1. NATIONAL HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 EARLIER AT THYAGARAJA ROAD, MYSURU – 570 004 SINCE UNDER LIQUIDATION, NOW BEING REPRESENTED BY LIQUIDATOR-SALE OFFICER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU – 570 024 - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1666 WP No. 4692 of 2025 HC-KAR

#2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JL B ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER (BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSORE IN OS.NO. 120/1995 REJECTING IA NO. 6 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.6. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.120/1995 is directed against impugned order dated 27.01.2025 whereby application I.A.No. 6 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking recasting of Issue No. 4 was rejected by the trial Court.

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for 2nd respondent. Though the notice of this petition has been served on the 1st respondent, the same has been returned - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1666 WP No. 4692 of 2025 HC-KAR with postal shara ‘refused’. Hence, notice to 1st respondent is held sufficient.

#3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against respondents-defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. In the first instance, the petitioner-plaintiff contended that the suit schedule properties had not been validly transferred to Madhuban Hotels vide registered sale deeds and accordingly, the following issues were framed by the trial Court as hereunder; “ 1. Does plaintiff prove that it acquired the suit property from the first defendant under the registered sale deeds in the names of its shareholders?

#2. Does the suit property come within the urban agglomeration and under the control of the MUDA, as pleaded in para 6 of the written statement?

#3. Is the village Panchayat of Hinkal competent to approve and sanction licence to the plaintiff to construct hotel in the suit property?

#4. Does the plaintiff prove that the plaint schedule sites were validly transferred to Madhuban Hotels in the year 1982 by registered Sale deeds?

#5. Does the plaintiff prove that it was put in possession of suit property pursuant to said sales? - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1666 WP No. 4692 of 2025 HC-KAR

#6. Does the plaintiff prove that the plaint schedule sites were in its lawful possession on the date of suit?

#8. Is the alleged interference true? Do the sale deeds relief upon by the plaintiff convey title in favour of the plaintiff?

#9. Is the suit property valued and the court fee paid sufficient?

#10. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled.?”

#4. Subsequently, the petitioner-plaintiff got the plaint amended interalia contending that the transfer of the suit schedule sites in favour of Madhuban Hotels in the year 1982 was not by way of registered sale deeds but followed by Deed of dissolution. The said application for amendment filed by the petitioner-plaintiff having been allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 26.10.2024 permitting incorporation/insertion of paragraph 5(b) to 5(i) in the plaint, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.6 under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking recasting/reframing of Issue No. 4 in terms of the amended plaint. Though the said application was not opposed by the respondents, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1666 WP No. 4692 of 2025 HC-KAR which, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present petition.

#5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that by virtue of the amendment permitted by the trial Court, in the amended plaint, the petitioner- plaintiff was entitled to seek recasting of the issues especially issue No.4 in terms of the amended plaint. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the averments made in the amended plaint, which clearly indicate that Issue No. 4 deserves to be recast as sought for by the petitioner- plaintiff in I.A.No.6 and consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.6 deserves to be set aside and I.A.No. 6 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff deserves to be allowed.

#6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.120/1995 by the trial court is hereby set aside. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1666 WP No. 4692 of 2025 HC-KAR (iii) I.A.No. 6 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking recasting of Issue No. 4 is hereby allowed. (iv) The trial court is directed to recast Issue No. 4 as sought for in the amended plaint by the petitioner – plaintiff and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.