2024:BHC-OS:15449 Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5060 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 4 OF 2021 M/s SR Enterprises Applicant In The Matter Between M/s SR Enterprises …Plaintiff Versus Gurbachan Kaur Jattinder Singh Chadha & Anr …Defendants And Amardeep Kaur Chadha Respondent Prop. Defendant No. 3 SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE D byig Sit Hal Ely P Hsi Agn Le Id Mr Shoaib Ibrahim Memon, for the Applicants/Plaintiffs.

SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2024.10.05 Mr Sutapa Saha, for Defendant No. 1.

14:54:28 +0530 Mr Robin Jaisinghani with Ranjit Dharmadhikari & Kartik Tiwari, i/b Lakshyavedhi Legal, for Defendant No. 2.

CORAM: ARIF S. DOCTOR, J DATED: 27th September 2024 ORDER:

1. The Applicant is the Plaintiff in the captioned Suit and has filed the present Interim Application (“IA”) seeking amendments to the Plaint as have been more particularly set out in the schedule appended to the IA. For the ease and continuity of reference, the parties shall be referred to as they appear in the Plaint.

2. Mr Memon then for context submitted that Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff had entered into a Development Agreement (DA) and subsequently a Supplementary Agreement (SA) for the redevelopment of a building known as ‘Guru Niwas’ (“the said building”) which stood on a plot of land (“the said Plot”) owned by Defendant No. 1. He submitted that it was not in dispute that the said building was occupied by tenants/occupants who were to be provided permanent alternate accommodation of same area as occupied by them in the said building. It was thus he submitted that the area occupied by the tenants/occupants was of vital importance and was a crucial factor.

3. Mr Memon then submitted that it was only after the DA was entered into, that the Plaintiff become aware that Defendant No. 1 had misrepresented to the Plaintiff, the area which was in the occupation of each tenant. He pointed out that for the reasons more particularly set out in the Plaint, Defendant No. 1 terminated the DA and SA and had entered into a Deed of Conveyance with Defendant No. 2 which is why the Plaintiff was constrained to file the present Suit.

4. Mr Memon submitted that it was only after the present Suit was filed that the Plaintiff obtained a complete copy of the entire Deed of Conveyance entered into between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2. He submitted that from a perusal of the complete Deed of Conveyance, the Plaintiff inter alia became aware that the same stated the areas in the occupation of the tenants were in excess of what had been disclosed to the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1, when the DA was executed. He thus submitted that this corroborated the Plaintiff’s case that Defendant No. 1 had misrepresented the areas which were in the occupation of the tenants to the Plaintiff when the DA was executed.

5. Mr Memon then additionally submitted that the Plaintiff also became aware of the fact that Defendant No.1 had fraudulently created certain tenancies in favour of his daughter in-law i.e. proposed Defendant No. 3, in the said building. He submitted that this was also done to defeat the rights of the Plaintiff under the DA. Mr Memon then additionally submitted that despite the fact that the Deed of Conveyance had been entered into between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 on 20th November 2020, Defendant No. 1 continued to act and represent himself as the owner of the said land and building. It was thus he submitted that the Deed of Conveyance was a collusive, bogus and a sham document.

6. It was basis the above fact all of which have come to the Plaintiff’s knowledge only after the Suit was filed, that the Plaintiff has filed the IA essentially seeking to (i) bring on record the additional facts (ii) implead proposed Defendant No. 3 as a party Defendant to the Suit and (iii) seek certain consequential reliefs. Mr Memon submitted that if the amendments were not allowed the Plaintiff