Patna High Court
Dr. (Pro.) Ram Bhagawan Singh vs Brajesh Kumar on 4 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.48 of 2023
======================================================
1. Dr. (Pro.) Ram Bhagawan Singh Son of Late Ram Dayal Singh Resident of
1/A/4, New Patliputra Colony, P.S.- Srikrishnapuri, District- Patna, PIN-
800013.
2. Anil Kumar Sinha Uddyogi, Son of Late Ram Dayal Singh Resident of
Asashrya, B/97, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.O.- Lohiyanagar, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, District- Patna, PIN- 800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Brajesh Kumar Son of Late Ramgati Singh Resident of Progressive Colony,
P.O.- T.V. Tower, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna, PIN- 800026.
2. Satyendra Kumar, Son of Sardanand Sinha Resident of New Sarak Chauk,
Patnacity, P.O.- Jhauganj, P.S.- Chauk, District- Patna, PIN- 800008.
3. Raju Kumar, Son of Suresh Prasad Resident of Sindhi Dhalan, Khajekalan,
Patnacity, P.O.- Jhauganj, P.S.- Khajekalan, District- Patna, PIN- 800008.
4. Hemant Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Shyam Kumar Gupta Resident of
Bakarganj, Gola Road, P.O.- Bankipur, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna, PIN-
800004.
5. M/s Maurya Bihar, At Jaganpura, New By-pass Road, Opposite- Patna
Central School, P.S.- Ram-Krishna Nagar, District- Patna, PIN- 800027.
6. Sri Nagesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Suresh Prasad Gupta Resident of
Chawartakiya, Sasaram, P.O. and P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas, PIN-
821115.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The present petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
2/13
"1.1. To issue a writ of Certiorari
for quashing the order dated 12.10.2022
[as contained in Annexure-8] passed by
Sri Arvind Kumar Singh Sub-Judge-IX,
Patna, in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2020
[Dr. (Pro) Ram Bhagawan Singh &
another Vs. Brajesh Kumar) where by
and where under the petition under Rule
6 of Order XII, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioners
for passing a decree of eviction on the
basis of the admissions made in the
pleadings has erroneously been turned
down on unsustainable grounds.
1.2 To grant any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner may be
found entitled to."
3. The impugned order has arisen out of from the
Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2020. The aforesaid Eviction Suit
has been filed under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and Section 9 of the C.P.C on the
ground that the defendants/respondents have induced new
partner namely Nagesh Kumar Gupta as defendant No. 6
against the terms and conditions of lease deed dated
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
3/13
31.07.2014. Hence, the lease deed dated 31.07.2014 has become null and void.
4. The other ground is that the defendants have subletted the suit property and started a different business without knowledge and permission of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs/petitioners have prayed for a decree for recovery of Rs. 9,52,500/- as well as cost of the suit and arrears of the amount from the defendants/respondents apart from other ancillary reliefs.
5. The entire case of the plaintiffs/petitioners is based on the lease deed dated 31.07.2014 executed by two lessors viz. Dr. (Prof.) Ram Bhagwan Singh and Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha in favour of four lessees viz. Brajesh Kumar, Sri. Satendra Kumar, Sri. Raju Kumar and Sri. Hemant Kumar in respect to the properties mentioned in Schedule- I of the lease deed.
6. After admission, the defendants/respondents have appeared and written statements in separate sets have been filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 5.
7. After filing written statement, a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 4/13 XII, Rule-6 in which it is stated that decree may be passed on admission under Order XII, Rule 6.
8. Subsequently, a supplementary petition was also filed in which the plaintiffs/petitioners have shown the admitted fact by the defendants/respondents in a Tabular form regarding which rejoinders have also been filed by the defendants/respondents.
9. During course of argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners has advanced his arguments on the admitted facts of the defendants/respondents in their written statements. Firstly, he argues that the jural relationship between both the parties have been admitted and the legal notices served upon the defendants/respondents requesting to vacate the entire lease hold premises have also been admitted in the written statement. In Tabular chart also, the plaintiffs/petitioners have shown the admission made by the defendants/respondents in their written statements on these two points.
10. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners has drawn the attention towards Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 5/13 para 3 of his supplementary petition filed under Order XII Rule 6 which is as follows:-
"3. That the plaintiffs rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of which copy has been submitted and reference (citation) is Payal Vision Ltd. versus Radhika Choudhary and judgment is dated September 20, 2012 whereby and whereunder the Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleased to consider the provision of Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C and in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff landlord is the existence of the Jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act so long as these two aspects are not in dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. as above placed.
In para 7 of the judgment above interpretation and findings have been Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 6/13 given."
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners has also refers to para 6 of the petition which reads as under:-
"6. That from the submissions made it is manifest that there is no dispute regarding possession of the defendants of the suit premises and possession taken in pursuance of the lease deed dated 31-07-
2014 and the defendants Jural relationship still exits therefore these two counts are not in dispute hence in the light of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court a decree for possession may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs".
12. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants/respondents, during the course of argument has drawn the attention of this Court towards the rejoinder filed on behalf of the defendants/respondents. Para 3, 4 and 5 of the same reads as under:-
"3. That it is well established Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 7/13 principles of law that unless the Jural relation of land lord and tenant is established, eviction suit either in BBC Act or T.P. Act is not maintainable. Admission of Jural relation does not mean admission of the ground and claim of the plaintiff land lord. As such no judgment will be imported on such admission of Jural relation holding the claim and ground of eviction admitted.
4. That in the present case there is no admission, more over, if there be any alleged admission, if any, must be clear.
5. That the statement made in paragraph 1 of the petition under reply is frivolous. The plaintiff has to state verabuting the so called admission so that the party concern may answer and explain the same. It is also accepted principle of law that admission can be explained and even withdrawn. But no such admission even in the petition under reply has been mentioned by way of submission and nothing more such Zick zack statement will not signify the admission on the part of the defendant, hence the petition under reply is not tenable."
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 8/13
13. During the course of arguments, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants/respondents has also placed reliance on the same judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6734 of 2012(Payal Vision Limited versus Radhika Choudhary).
14. Learned Senior counsel has also argued that in order to invoke Order XII, Rule 6 and to pass any order thereunder, there must be unequivocal admission on the issue of facts, then only the Court can pass order/judgment on that issue of admission which speaks as follows:-
"[R. 6. Judgment on admissions.-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 9/13 pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and decree shall bear the date on which the said judgment was pronounced.]"
15. After plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it becomes clear that object of this Rule is to enable the parties to obtain speaking order/judgment at least to the extent of admissions of the defendant, regarding which relief, the plaintiff is entitled to. Such admission may be, by the defendant either in his written statement or in his reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff. The aforesaid admission may be made with respect to the entire claim made in the suit or even part of the claim in which, decree could be passed separately.
16. After going through the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as entire import of Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C, it is clear that judgment on admission in any case can be delivered only when such admission is clear and unequivocal in the written statement of defendant or in reply to the notice by the defendant. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 10/13
17. On the anvil of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, when I examine the present case, I find that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have clearly pleaded in their written statement that written statement filed or statement made in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by defendant No. 1 are not binding on these defendants and the plaintiffs could not be allowed to take any advantage against these defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in any manner whatsoever. They have also pleaded that defendant No. 1 was fully in contact with plaintiffs being their relative as son-in-law and in connivance with defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs took an advantage by filing a collusive W.S which is against the interest of other defendants.
18. It is further pleaded by these defendants that plaintiffs have wrongly and with oblique motive issued notices dated 07.02.2019 and 11.03.2019. The said notice was rightly replied with. The plaintiffs had no occasion to determine the lease till the expiry of the lease which would expire on the expiry of the month of November, 2025.
19. In the impugned order, learned Sub-Judge- Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 11/13 IX, Patna has come to the following conclusion:-
"Heard both the sides and perused the case record. From perusal of the case record it transpires that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground that the defendants have inducted new partner namely Nagesh Kumar Gupta. The plaintiff pleaded that since a new partner namely Nagesh Kumar Gupta has been inducted therefore the lease deed dated 31-07-2014 became null and void. From perusal of the case record plaint as well as the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 2 to 5 it transpires that relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. From perusal of the lease deed dated 31-07- 2014 it transpires that the aforesaid lease deed has been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant nos. 1 to 4. From the recitals of lease deed dated 31-07-2014 it is clear that the plaintiffs have executed the said lease deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 to 4 in their individual capacity, and no endorsement has been made in the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 12/13 aforesaid lease deed regarding any partnership in between the defendants. From perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 2 to 5 it transpires that no such admission has been made by the defendants that the aforesaid lease deed has been executed in favour of defendants as a partnership firm. Moreover, from the perusal of the lease deed dated 31-07- 2014 it also transpires that there is no such term and condition mentioned therein that the aforesaid lease deed will become null and void by induction of new partner by the defendants in their business."
20. After going through the entire facts and considering the legal provisions, I come to the conclusion that the aforementioned admission of defendants/ respondents as referred to by the plaintiffs/petitioners is not clear and unequivocal to that extent that any judgment could be passed in favor of plaintiffs/petitioners on that basis. Furthermore, if opportunity is not given to the defendants/respondents to contest the aforesaid factual Patna High Court C.Misc. No.48 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025 13/13 issues in the suit, they will be debarred forever to contest these issues in any further proceeding or suit on the principle of res judicata /constructive res judicata embodied in Section 11 of the C.P.C. which would be illegal and unjust. Hence, It requires full fledged trial, then only the entire issue can be decided.
21. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. Hence, the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by learned Sub-Judge-IX, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2020 is hereby upheld.
22. Civil Miscellaneous No. 48 of 2023 stands dismissed accordingly.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 25/08/2025 Uploading Date 04/12/2025 Transmission Date N/A