M/S Madhuban Hotels Private Limited Vs National… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

M/S Madhuban Hotels Private Limited Vs National… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.120/1995 set aside; I.A.No.6 (Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, recasting of Issue No. 4) allowed; trial Court directed to recast Issue No. 4 as sought in the amended plaint and proceed further in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A.No.6 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking recasting/reframing of Issue No. 4 in terms of the amended plaint ought to have been allowed (i.e., whether the trial Court rightly rejected it by order dated 27.01.2025).

Court's answer

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.

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the averments made in the amended plaint, which clearly indicated that Issue No. 4 deserved to be recast as sought for by the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.6.

Key takeaways

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.6 deserved to be set aside, and I.A.No. 6 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff deserved to be allowed.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff (Madhuban Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) in O.S.No.120/1995 against the trial Court's order dated 27.01.2025 rejecting I.A.No.6 (Order 14 Rule 5 CPC) seeking recasting of Issue No. 4. Following the plaint amendment permitted on 26.10.2024 (insertion of paragraphs 5(b) to 5(i)), contending that the 1982 transfers were effected by Deed of dissolution rather than registered sale deeds, the petitioner sought reframing of Issue No. 4; the application, though unopposed by the respondents, was rejected by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore. Held that the permitted amendment entitled the plaintiff to seek recasting of the issues, especially Issue No. 4, and that the trial Court had failed to consider and appreciate the averments in the amended plaint; the impugned order was set aside, I.A.No.6 was allowed, and the trial Court was directed to recast Issue No. 4 as sought in the amended plaint and proceed further in accordance with law. Oral order of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, dated 12.01.2026.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1666 WP No. 4692 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4692 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

M/S MADHUBAN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 EARLIER HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 45, RAMRAJ MANSION, 100 FT ROAD, VYSYA BANK COLONY, BTM 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 076

NOW HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 534/14 (NEW NO. 67), 3^RD CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. K S S RAJAN …PETITIONER

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK R. S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JL B ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

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 the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 whereby the 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.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for 2^nd respondent. Though the notice of this petition has been served on the 1^st 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 1^st respondent is held sufficient.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the 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?

7. Is the alleged interference true?

8. 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.?”

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.

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 petitionerplaintiff 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 petitionerplaintiff 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.

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.