Delhi District Court
Chhaya Gupta vs Bharat Lalwani on 2 May, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS
EXTENSION BLOCK, DELHI
CNR NO.DLWT01-0105432024
CS (COMM) NO.5854/2024
CHHAYA GUPTA
W/O SH PAWAN GUPTA
R/O A-6, VIKASPURI,
NEW DELHI-110018
......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BHARAT LALWANI
S/O SH. GOPI CHAND LALWANI
R/O C-2/54, FIRST FLOOR
JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI
ALSO AT
SHOP NO.2, GROUND FLOOR
NEW MARKET TILAK NAGAR
NEW DELHI
......DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 07.12.2024
Date of conclusion of arguments : 28.04.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.05.2025
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1.By this judgment, I shall dispose off the application U/o XIII A CPC filed by plaintiff seeking Summary Judgment.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present application are that plaintiff filed present suit for possession and mesne profit with respect to front side portion of the shop bearing no.2, measuring the carpet area of 256.75 sq.ft. Or 42.16 sq. mtrs approx , Ground Floor, Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 by HEMANI Page No.1 of 10 HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.02 15:53:18 +0530 2 without roof/terrace rights, New Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Property'). It was claimed by plaintiff that plaintiff had purchased the 'Suit Property' from defendant vide registered sale deed 25.03.2021 and the same was let out to defendant w.e.f. 01.04.2021 till upto 31.03.2023 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,25,000/- vide registered lease deed dated 06.07.2021. After the expiry of the said lease deed, the parties entered into another agreement dated 09.06.2023 vide which the lease was further extended for a period of six months from 01.04.2023 to 31.10.2023. The defendant continued to pay the monthly rent upto October'2023. However, since then he had neither tendered the rent nor handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of 'Suit Property'. Hence, the plaintiff after resorting to pre litigation mediation filed the present suit against the defendant.
3. In the written statement filed by defendant, the defendant admitted not only admitted execution of registered sale deed dated 25.03.2021 but also the registered lease deed dated 06.07.2021 and agreement dated 09.06.2023. However, it was claimed by defendant that since defendant was in dire need of financial assistance, upon the advise of Pawan Gupta ( husband of plaintiff ), he and plaintiff entered into an arrangement vide which the sale deed was executed. It was agreed upon that the said sale deed would be reversed, once the defendant repaid the financial assistance of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Eight Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 HEMANI by HEMANI MALHOTRA Page No.2 of 10 MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.02 15:53:28 +0530 3 Lac) to the plaintiff alongwith interest @12% per annum on the borrowed amount. It was also agreed that from the date of advancement of loan, until the full repayment of principal and interest, possession of the 'Suit Property' would remain with defendant. It was in this background that a registered sale deed dated 25.03.2021 was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for the consideration amount of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Eight Lac) even though the market value of 'Suit Property' was not less than Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three crore) . The defendant also claimed that it was mutually decided that defendant would make monthly payment of Rs.2,25,000/- to the plaintiff, out of which Rs.1,75,000/- would be adjusted against the principal loan of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rs.48 lacs) and the remaining Rs.50,000/- would be treated as interest. Thus, the sale deed, lease deed etc., and the agreement were related to the loan availed by defendant and in reality were not documents pertaining to sale etc. Defendant further averred that the entire amount of Rs.48,00,000/- alongwith monthly interest of Rs.60,000/- stood paid until October'2023, yet the plaintiff filed the present false commercial suit. Bharat Lalwani/defendant also averred that the uncle of defendant has also filed a civil suit bearing no. CS DJ 374/2021 concerning the very property and other portion wherein plaintiff was also a party.
4. Based on the averments and the admissions of defendant with respect to the registered Sale Deed dated 25.03.2021, registered Lease Deed dated 06.07.2021 and Agreement Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 HEMANI by HEMANI MALHOTRA Page No.3 of 10 MALHOTRA Date:
2025.05.02 15:53:36 +0530 4 dated 09.06.2023, the plaintiff preferred the application under disposal for passing Summary Judgment.
5. In the reply to the application, amongst the claim made by defendant in the Written Statement, defendant also pleaded that at the time when the defendant availed the loan of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Eight lacs) from the plaintiff, the defendant was suffering from acute depression, memory loss and other neurological issues, which fact was documented by the medical record. Thus, owing to continuous business losses and severe mental strain, he was not in sound state of mind to fully comprehend the implications of the transactions. The husband of plaintiff took undue advantage of the impaired cognitive condition of defendant and insisted upon execution of sale deed.
6. Lengthy arguments were addressed by Sh. Kapil Lalwani, learned counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Ajay Fatyal, learned counsel for defendant. Learned counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon judgment titled as SIDDHATHA SINGH VS AJIT SINGH BAWA(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. RFA (COMM) 40/2022 DATED 12.07.2022 in support of his averments.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for plaintiff very vehemently contended that the contentions of the defendant were baseless and vague, especially when defendant has admitted the execution of documents relied upon by plaintiff and considering the same, defendant had CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 HEMANI Digitally signed by HEMANI MALHOTRA Page No.4 of 10 MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.02 15:53:45 +0530 5 no real prospect of succeeding and/or defending the case. He further asserted that upon perusal of the Written Statement and documents filed by defendant, the following facts emanate :
(a)The defendant in its written statement has clearly admitted the execution of Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff .
(b)The defendant has further admitted the execution of the registered lease deed dated 06.07.2021 and extension agreement dated 09.06.2023 in his affidavit of admission/denial.
(c)The defendant further admits that he has paid an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- per month w.e.f. July upto October '2023.
(d)That the admission of execution of the above said documents coupled with the fact of receipt of Rs.2,25,000/- clearly substantiates the contentions of the plaintiff with respect to the ownership of the plaintiff and the tenancy of the defendant.
(e)That there is no order by any Court of Law declaring the said documents i.e. Sale Deed dated 25.03.2021, Lease Deed dated 06.07.2021 and Extension Agreement dated 09.06.2023 as null and void. Moreover, the defendant has not even preferred any such suit till the filing of the present suit which clearly reflects that the contentions of the defendant with respect to suit property not being sold is an afterthought.
(f)That in addition, in the civil suit as relied by the defendant, he has himself filed certain documents alongwith his Written Statement which in fact further strengthens the stand of the plaintiff that is a valid sale deed. The defendant has annexed ordersheet dated01.05.2023 alongwith Written Statement wherein he himself has made submission that the suit property has been sold to the defendant no.4 (plaintiff herein). The said document is a clear admission before a Court of law.
Digitally signedby HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.02 15:53:57 +0530 Page No.5 of 10 6
8. Per contra, in the arguments addressed by learned counsel for defendant, he reiterated the averments made by defendant in the Written Statement as well as reply to the application. He also reiterated that Sh. Pawan Gupta, husband of plaintiff had taken advantage of impairment of defendant.
9. Summary judgment as the name suggests is an outcome of the case decided summarily, based on the documentary evidence produced before the Court by the parties, without going for recording of evidence. The rule of Civil Procedure empowers the court to narrow issues and expedite proceedings by granting summary judgments where the common law permits. It is an effective tool for deciding cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a trial is unnecessary. However, to grant a summary judgment, the court must be satisfied that there is no issue for trial. Rule 3 of Order XIII A of the CPC lays down the following grounds for Summary Judgment against a party on a claim, when it considers that :
(a) The plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on a claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim : and
(b) There is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.
10. In a case titled as "AMBAWATTA BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURE LTD. AND ORS . reported as 2019 SCC ONLINE DL 8657, it was held by the Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 by HEMANI MALHOTRA Page No.6 of 10 HEMANI MALHOTRA Date:
2025.05.02 15:54:10 +0530 7 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:
"What has to be seen is, whether the defence pleaded, has any chance of succeeding of in law and if the answer is in the negative, a decree on admissions or order XXV of CPC or a summary judgment Under Order XIII A CPC as applicable to commercial dispute where Chapter X-A of the Delhi High Court (in original sites) Rules 2018 has to follow."
11. Similarly, in SYRMA TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VS.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES SWEDEN AD and another reported as 2020 SCC ONLINE MAD 5737, it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as under:
"This rule provides sufficient powers to the court to pass the conditional order. This power has to be exercised when it appears to the court that it is possible that a claim or defence may succeed but it is improbable that it shall do so. If we read Order XIII A Rule 6 & 7 together, a clear picture would emerge. If it appears to the court that a claim or defence may succeed and it is also probable, then the application filed seeking a Summary judgment will have to be dismissed. If it appears to the Court that it is possible but improbable as stated in Rule 7 of Order XIII-A of the Code, then it may consider passing a conditional order."
If the court considers that a plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim there is no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence, it may give a Summary judgment. Alternatively, the Court can also consider striking out the pleadings either in whole or in part. This discretion is given to the Court before deciding to give a summary judgment. Therefore, the court has to keep in mind and decide as to whether it is a fit case for striking out the pleadings dismissing an application and proceed further or a conditional order could be passed. After exhausting these stages, the question of granting a summary judgment would arise."
12. The judgment of Siddhata Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiff further reiterates the view Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.02 15:54:24 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 Page No.7 of 10 8 taken in the previous judgments. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of Siddhata Singh (supra) opined that :
While deciding the said application for passing a Summary Judgment under Order XIII A, unlike the provision of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, there need not be an 'admission' and it is not a pre- condition. Two fundamental grounds which have to be satisfied while deciding an order XII A application are that a party has to show that the other party has no real prospect of succeeding in and/or defending the claim and that there is no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed off before commencement of trial i.e. recording of oral evidence."
13. Now applying the principles of Summary Judgment to the facts of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant miserably failed to satisfy this court that there is any triable issue which requires trial or that defendant has any real prospect of successfully defending the claim of plaintiff. The defendant has not only admitted the execution of registered sale deed dated 25.03.2021 but also the registered lease deed dated 06.07.2021 and agreement dated 09.06.2023 which establishes the fact that plaintiff is the owner of 'Suit Property' and that plaintiff had let out the 'Suit Property' to defendant w.e.f. 01.04.2021 upto 31.10.2023 @monthly rent of Rs.2,25,000/- . Defendant, on the other hand, failed to place any document on record which could substantiate his claim that the aforementioned documents were infact loan documents and after the repayment of loan of Rs.48,00,000/- with interest, the plaintiff was obliged to reverse the sale of the 'Suit Property'. It is also Digitally signed by HEMANI CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
Page No.8 of 102025.05.02 15:54:29 +0530 9 pertinent to mention here that despite the fact that defendant claimed that the plaintiff was to reverse the sale, not even a legal notice to this effect was issued by defendant to plaintiff. The aforesaid observation is also strengthened from the fact that the defendant on 01.05.2023 in CS DJ 374/2021 very categorically admitted before the Learned ADJ/08/West/THC/Delhi that the 'Suit Property' was sold to the plaintiff herein on 25.03.2021.
14. So far as the plaintiff taking advantage of mental vulnerability and impaired cognitive condition of defendant is concerned, the medical documents relied upon by learned counsel for defendant , do not support this contention. The medical documents reflect that defendant had complained of suffering from acute depression on 17.09.2022 at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari Nagar whereafter defendant visited Panchsheel Heart and Medical Center on 26.09.2023, 11.10.2023, 27.12.2023, 02.11.2023 and therafter, whereas the registered sale deed was executed on 25.03.2021, the registered lease deed was executed on 06.07.2021 and agreement for extension of lease was executed on 09.06.2023 i.e. before the defendant started visiting various Doctors for consultation for depression.
15. Resultantly, the application of plaintiff under Order XIIIA CPC is allowed. Present suit is, thus, decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 Page No.9 of 10 Digitally signed by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2025.05.02 15:54:43 +0530 10 Defendant is hereby directed to handover peaceful possession of the 'Suit Property' i.e. front side portion of the shop bearing no.2, measuring the carpet area of 256.75 sq.ft. Or 42.16 sq. mtrs approx , Ground Floor, without roof/terrace rights, New Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. Plaintiff is also held entitled to recover arrears of rent @Rs.2,25,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.2023 with interest @18% per annum till the date of actual delivery of the 'Suit Property' .
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by HEMANI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.02 ON 02nd May'2025 15:54:53 +0530 (HEMANI MALHOTRA) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM )-02/WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS EXTN. BLOCK, DELHI@ CS (Comm) No. 5854/24 Page No.10 of 10