Vazhakulam Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Jeevan T.C. and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1943** ## **OP(C) NO. 2435 OF 2018** **OS 16/2015 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT. LTD. SOUTH VAZHAKKULA VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM PIN-683105 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-BINOY JOSEPH 2 BINOY JOSEPH AGED 38 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT. LTD SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM PIN 683105 3 SUDHAKARAN, AGED 1 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, DIRECTOR, VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT LTD, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM PIN 683105. 4 AJITH CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 1 YEARS DIRECTOR, S/O. SANKARAN CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR, VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT LTD, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 683105. BY ADV K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 JEEVAN.T.C S/O CHARLES T.DAVID THOPPIL HOUSE PERINGOLE KARA AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -2- PIN-683105 2 DAVID T. CHARLES (MINOR) S/O. CHARLES T. DAVID, THOPPIL HOUSE,PERINGOLE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER-CHARLES T. DAVID, S/O. DAVID, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERINGOLE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683105. 3 M/S. V-DAY INN, DOOR NO. XI/145 KULIYARA HOUSE, M.C ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683541 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-KARTHIKEYAN K.A 4 KARTHIKEYAN K.A, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. V-DAY INN, DOOR NO. XI/145 KULIYARA HOUSE, M.C ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683541 5 SUSHEELAN K.A AGED 42 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, PARTNER, M/S. V-DAY INN, KILIYARA HOUSE, M.C ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683541. 6 BALAKRISHNAN K.S, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, PARTNERE, M/S. V-DAY INN, KILIYARA HOUSE, M.C ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683541 7 PAULOSE N.M @ ROY S/O. MATHAI, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT NANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 682 311. 8 CISILY PAULOSE, W/O. PAULOSE, PARTNER, M/S. V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT NANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 682311. OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -3- 9 ROSHAN ROY, S/O. PAULOSE, PARTNER, M/S. V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT NANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 682 311. 10 DENCY CHARLES, W/O. CHARLES T. DAVID, PARTNER, M/S. V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE, PERINGOLE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683105 11 REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH) REGIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE INDIA TOURISM, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTH, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SATHISAN SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU SHRI.ATHUL RAJESH THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).760/2019, THE COURT ON 21.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -4- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1943** ## **OP(C) NO. 760 OF 2019** ## **OS 16/2015 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 KARTHIKEYAN K.A. AGED 57 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPAN, DOOR NO.XI/145, KILIYARA HOUSE, M.C.ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O., RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 683541. 2 SUSHEELAN K.A., AGED 1 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPAN, KILIYARA HOUSE, M.C.ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O., RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 683541. 3 BALAKRISHNAN K.S., AGED 1 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPAN, KILIYARA HOUSE, M.C.ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O., RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 683541. BY ADV S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 JEEVAN T.C., S/O.CHARLES T.DAVI, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERINGOLE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 683105. 2 DAVID T.CHRLES (MINOR), S/O.CHARLES T.DAVID, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERINGOLE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER-CHARLES T.DAVID, S/O.DAVID, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERINGOLE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -5- - TALUK, PIN- 683105. - 3 VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT.LTD., SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683105, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-BINOY JOSEPH. - 4 BINOY JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT. LTD., SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683105. - 5 SUDHAKARAN, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, DIRECTOR, VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT. LTD., SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683105. - 6 AJITH CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, DIRECTOR, S/O.SANKARAN CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR, VAZHAKKULAM HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT. LTD., SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683105. - 7 M/S.V-DAY INN, DOOR NO.XI/145, KILIYARA HOUSE, M.C.ROAD, PULLU VAZHI P.O., RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 683541, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-KARTHIKEYAN K.A. - 8 PAULOSE N.M @ ROY, S/O.MATHAI, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT NANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 682311. - 9 CISILY PAULOSE, W/O.PAULOSE, PARTNER, M/S.V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT NANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 682311. - 10 ROSHAN ROY, S/O.PAULOSE, PARTNER, M/S.V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT NANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN- 682311. - 11 DENCY CHARLES, W/O.CHARLES T.DAVID, PARTNER, M/S.V-DAY INN, RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE, PERINGOLE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -6- PIN- 682311. 12 REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH), REGIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE, INDIA TOURISM, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTH, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI- 600002. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SATHISAN SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.T.K.SREEKALA SMT.ROHINI S KUMAR SHRI.ATHUL RAJESH SRI.P.RAHUL **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).2435/2018, THE COURT ON 21.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -7- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 21[st] day of December, 2021 The petitioners in O.P.(C) No.2435 of 2018 are defendants 1 to 4 and the petitioners in O.P. (C) No.760 of 2019 are defendants 5 to 7 in O.S.No.16 of 2015 on the files of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. The suit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 praying for a decree against defendants 1 to 4 by allowing partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds, holding Sale Deed No.5940 of 2011 of SRO, Perumbavoor as not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and allotting 20% share in the property to the plaintiffs, with past and future mesne profits. The further prayer is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from taking steps to renew the FL3 bar licence in respect of the building situated in the plaint OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -8- schedule property, based on the lease agreement dated 18.06.2011 and Sale Deed No.5940 of 2011 of SRO, Perumbavoor. The suit is filed with the following averments; The plaintiffs are minors and are represented by their father as natural guardian. The first defendant is a Company registered under the Companies Act and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the Managing Director and Directors respectively of the Company. The plaintiffs and defendants 6 to 12 are the Managing Partner and partners respectively of the 5[th] defendant, a registered partnership firm. The 5[th] defendant firm had purchased 48.0432 cents of land in Vazhakulam Village and had constructed a four storied building therein. Thereafter, the firm obtained three star classification for commencing hotel business in the building. The 6[th] defendant, in collusion with defendants 1 to 4, leased out the hotel and building with all amenities to the ## OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -9- first defendant Company for 12 years from 18.06.2011. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the first defendant is bound to give Rs.30,00,000/- as deposit/security to the 5[th] defendant firm and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/towards monthly rent. It is alleged that, even though plaintiffs are entitled for 20% share of the amount thus paid, the 6[th] defendant misappropriated that amount. Moreover, defendants 5 to 12 clandestinely transferred the properties of the 5[th] defendant firm to the 1[st] defendant Company under a forged sale deed. The plaintiff's 20% share was also sold to the first defendant Company, without obtaining the requisite legal sanction for selling minor's rights. The plaintiffs' mother, arrayed as the 12[th] defendant, had signed the documents on behalf of the minors. The 12[th] defendant had no legal right to alienate the property without obtaining necessary sanction. The lease agreement and sale deed OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -10- executed in favour of the first defendant were adverse to the interest and welfare of the minor plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sent lawyer notice to defendants 5 to 12 expressing their intention to dissolve the 6[th] defendant partnership firm and to take appropriate steps for cancelling the illegal lease deed. The defendants having failed to accede to the demand, the suit was filed. 2. Defendants 1 to 4 filed written statement claiming exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property, based on the lease agreement to which the plaintiffs' mother is a party and their father, an attesting witness. The lease agreement was executed on 18.06.2011, based on a unanimous decision of the partners of the 5[th] defendant firm. The first defendant purchased the plaint schedule property and hotel as per sale deed dated 11.11.2011. All the partners of 5[th] defendant firm signed the sale deed. The first defendant has thereafter, OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -11- obtained FL3 licence and is conducting a bar in the hotel. The minors' share in the partnership was sold by their mother, with the consent of their father. Defendants 6 to 8 also filed written statement on similar lines and further contended that the 5[th] defendant firm was dissolved as per dissolution deed dated 25.11.2011 and the accounts settled among partners. 3. In the suit, issues were framed on 5.7.2016 and trial commenced from 12.10.2017 onwards. After closure of evidence, the matter was heard on different dates from 20.02.2018 to 30.06.2018, and the suit posted for judgment on 11.07.2018, 17.07.2018, 19.07.2018 and 27.07.2018. At that juncture, plaintiffs filed an application seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating the following reliefs; _“(AA) To pass a decree declaring 5[th] defendant partnership as dissolved._ **==> picture [284 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -12- _injunction directing defendants 5 and 6 to produce the books of accounts of the 5[th] defendant firm as on the date of dissolution of partnership and to pass a preliminary decree directing settlement of accounts based on the proper books of accounts._ _(AC) To pass a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from using the name and goodwill of 5[th] defendant namely, “V DAY INN” until the settlement of accounts are effected of the firm fully and finally.”_ 4. The defendants raised strong objection contending that the amendment, if allowed, will change the character of the suit entirely and will mete out injustice and prejudice to the defendants. It was pointed out that the written statement was filed in the year 2013 and the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to seek amendment before the trial. That, the application filed when the case was posted for judgment cannot be entertained, in view of the interdiction contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. By the impugned order, trial court allowed the application for amendment, finding the amendment to be imperative. Hence, OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -13- the original petitions. 5. Heard Adv.Mayankutty Mather appearing for the petitioners in OP(C) No.2435 of 2018, Adv.S.B.Premachandra Prabhu, for the petitioners in OP(C) No.760 of 2019 and Adv.P.Sathisan for the respondents/plaintiffs. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court committed a gross illegality in allowing the amendment after the matter was finally heard and judgment reserved. It is submitted that trial court allowed the application, overlooking the interdiction contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. By the amendment, the nature and character of the suit is altered, causing substantial prejudice to the defendants. In the plaint, it is categorically stated that the plaintiffs are reserving their right to take appropriate legal proceedings against defendants 5 to 12 for settlement of accounts of the 5[th] defendant firm. OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -14- The attempt through the amendment is to incorporate the prayer for settlement of accounts of the 5[th] defendant firm. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Vidyabai and**_ ## _**others v. Padmalatha and another [(2009) 2 SCC**_ _**409]**_ to contend that when amendment of pleading is sought after hearing of the case, it is the primary duty of the court to consider whether the amendment is necessary for deciding the real dispute between the parties. The amendment shall be allowed only on such condition being fulfilled. The decision in _**Ajendraprasadji N.**_ ## _**Pande and another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.**_ _**[(2006) 12 SCC 1]**_ is pressed into service to support the contention that an amendment, seeking to introduce totally new and inconsistent case is liable to be rejected. 7. Supporting the impugned order, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that ## OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 ## -15- the amendment was imperative, since the suit, as framed, without a prayer for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts, is defective. The trial court had allowed the amendment finding it to be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute and for avoiding multiplicity of suits. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 is not an absolute embargo against amendment of pleadings and the Apex Court has repeatedly held that courts must construe applications for amendment liberally. In support of the contention, learned Counsel relied on the decisions in _**Suraj Prakash**_ _**Bhasin v. Raj Rani Bhasin and other [AIR 1981 SC 485], Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhury [AIR 2019 SC 1186], Eapen Antony v. Joseph and others [2009 (57) Civil CC (Kerala)]**_ . 8. Alternatively, it is contended that the plaintiffs were minors at the time of institution ## OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -16- of the suit and the first plaintiff, after attaining majority in the year 2016, realised that the plaint was not drafted in the best interest of the minors and hence, continuance of the suit, as originally filed, will be detrimental to their interest. It was in such circumstance that the application for amendment was filed. It is settled law that on attaining majority, minors have the right to institute fresh suits or bring in amendments to existing suits, repudiating the action of their guardian. In support of the proposition, the decisions in _**Kaliammal v. G.N.Ramaswami Goundar [AIR 1957**_ _**Madras 629], A Tamilselvan v. Senthil Constructions and others [2001 (4) CTC 603],**_ and _**Thakur v. Sukhdev and others [ILR 2019 (1) HP**_ _**461],**_ are relied on. 8. Indisputably, the application for amendment was filed after the hearing was OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -17- concluded and the suit taken for judgment. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, there is not even a whisper as regards the due diligence aspect in the affidavit filed in support of the application. 9. Order VI Rule 17, before it was omitted by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1999, reads as under; _"17. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties."_ The provision for amendment as it exists now was incorporated by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment Act), 2002 and reads as follows; – “17. **Amendment of pleadings** _The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties._ _Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,_ OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -18- _unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”_ ## 10. In _**Salem Advocate Bar Association v.**_ ## _**Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344]**_ , the Apex Court observed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, to some extent, curtails the absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. If the application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that, in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications filed to delay the trial. Later, in _**J.Samuel v.**_ ## _**Gattu Mahesh [(2012) 2 SCC 300]**_ , it was explained that the purpose behind bringing back Order VI Rule 17 to the Code through the Amendment Act, 2002 is to strike a balance between the provision for sweeping amendment which existed earlier and the omission of that provision as a whole by the Amendment Act of 1999. That balance has been OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -19- struck by the proviso, which prevents the court from allowing an application for amendment filed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In _**J.Samuel**_ , the Supreme Court has dilated on the due diligence aspect in the following words; _"_ _**Due diligence** is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term `Due diligence' is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial."_ The position has been succinctly laid down in _**Revanna v. Anjanamma [AIR 2019 SC 940]**_ also, the contextually relevant portion of which reads as under; OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -20- _“The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore,the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bonafide or malafide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.”_ 11. Surprisingly, the trial court placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered prior to 1999 and failed to note the impact of the proviso introduced by the Amending Act of 2002. The plaintiffs having failed to submit about the due diligence aspect and the court having failed to enquire into it, the challenge against the impugned order is liable to OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -21- be upheld. 12. The legal position that, on attainment of majority, a minor plaintiff has the right to make drastic amendments to the plaint, on finding the pleadings to be against his interest is well settled, and needs no reiteration. In the instant case, the application for amendment is filed by the guardian himself and not by the first plaintiff. There is no averment that the first plaintiff found the original pleadings to be contrary to the interest of the minors. Being so, no reliance can be placed on the cited decisions. For the reasons aforementioned, the original petitions are allowed. The order in I.A.No.408 of 2018 in O.S.No.16 of 2015 is set aside. Sd/- ## **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -22- ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 760/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED| |---|---| ||NO.5940/2011 OF PERUMBAVOOR SRO DATED| ||11.11.2011.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE DISSOLUTION DEED| ||DATED 25.11.2011.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN| ||O.S.NO.49/2013 (NOW NUMBERED AS OS| ||16/2015), SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR,| ||DATED 26.02.2013.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT| ||FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 IN| ||O.S.NO.49/2013 (NOW NUMBERED AS OS| ||16/2015), SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED| ||13.08.2013| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT| ||FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 5 TO 7 DATED| ||13.08.2013.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA| ||408/2018 IN OS 16/2015 FILED BY THE| ||PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SUB COURT,| ||PERUMBAVOOR DATED 24.07.2018.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE| ||SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR IN| ||I.A.NO.408/2018 IN O.S.NO.16/2018| ||DATED 31.07.2018.| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |EXHIBIT R1(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL CERTIFICATE| ||IN THE NAME OF V-DAY INN DATED| ||18.07.2018 WITH TYPE WRITTEN COPY.| |EXHIBIT R1(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE THREE STAR| ||CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATE BY THE| ||MINISTRY OF TROURISM GOVERNMENT OF| ||INDIA IN THE NAME OF V-DAY INN DATED| ||23.11.2017.| |EXHIBIT R1(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF TRADE| ||LICENSE FEE ISSUED BY THE VAZHAKKULAM| ||GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN THE NAME OF V-DAY| ||INN.| OP(C) Nos.2435/18 & 760/19 -23- ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2435/2018** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.| |---|---| ||5940/2011 OF PERUMABOOR SRO DATED 11-| ||11-2011| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE DISSOLUTION DEED| ||DATED 25-11-2011| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.| ||49/2013 (NOW NUMBERED AS OS 16/2015),| ||SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 26-2-2013| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT| ||FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN OS| ||NO. 49/2013 (NOW NUMBERED AS OS| ||16/2015) SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED| ||13-8-2013| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA| ||408/2018 IN OS 16/2015 FILED BY THE| ||PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SUB COURT,| ||PERUMBAVOOR DATED 24-7-2018.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY| ||THE PETITIONERS IN IA 408/2018 IN OS| ||16/2015 BEFORE THE SUB COURT,| ||PERUMBAVOOR DATED 26-07-2018| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE| ||SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR IN I.A NO.| ||408/2018 IN OS NO. 16/2015 DATED 31-| ||07-2018.|