Delhi High Court - Orders
Yogesh Kumar Aggarwal vs Sh.Yoginder Aggarwal & Ors on 15 May, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-31
* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 260/2021
YOGESH KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vipin Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SH.YOGINDER AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Ms. Ankita Tiwari and Mr. Abhishek
Tiwari, Advs for D-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 15.05.2025 I.A 12444/2025 (BY DEFENDANT NO.1 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 126 DAYS IN FILING OF REPLY TO I.A 7061/2024)
1. For the reasons stated in the instant application, the delay of 126 days in filing the reply to I.A. 7061/2024, is condoned and the reply is taken on record.
2. The instant application stands disposed of.
I.A. 7061/2024 (BY PLAINTIFF- ORDER 12 RULE 6 OF THE CPC- TO PASS DECREE OF PARITTION)
3. At the outset, it is clarified that the Court strictly confines this order application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). If the plaintiff wishes to invoke any other provision of the CPC, he may file a fresh application.
4. Heard. Mr. Vipin Nandwani, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Ms. This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:12:31 Ankita Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the contesting parties on the instant application.
5. Mr. Nandwani, learned counsel for the plaintiff, contends that, given the position taken by defendant No. 1, in the written statement, the plaintiff's case stands admitted. While taking the Court through the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, he points out paragraph No. 8 which contains the reply to the averments in paragraph 8 of the plaint. He emphasized that it is an admitted fact that the father of the parties died intestate. Thus, he asserts that as a natural consequence of the aforesaid admission would be that the suit property will have to be partitioned as sought in the present suit. He, then, contends that in the absence of any registered relinquishment deeds by any of the parties herein in favor of defendant No. 1, the purported theory of family settlement cannot be sustained.
6. The aforesaid submission is vehemently opposed by Ms. Ankita Tiwari, learned counsel for defendant no.1, who contends that there is no unequivocal admission by the defendant in the written statement. She re- reads the aforenoted paragraph no.8 and contends that defendant no.1 has specifically stated that there was a family settlement amongst the siblings and the wife of late Mr. Yashpal Aggarwal to the effect that the suit property will be divided among the two brothers. Learned counsel for defendant no.1, therefore, contends that the averments made in the plaint have been strongly objected to by defendant no. 1, and in the absence of an unequivocal admission, the suit cannot be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
7. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:12:31
8. The Supreme Court has clarified the scope and purpose of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, particularly in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India1, emphasizing that the provision is intended to facilitate expedited judgments in cases where the defendant has made clear admissions, thereby enabling the plaintiff to secure relief without undergoing a full trial. The Rule should be interpreted broadly to serve this purpose and should apply in situations where the admissions are plain and unequivocal, such that they leave no room for a contest. Further, in Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd.2, the Court reiterated that while judgments on admissions are permissible, especially when such admissions are evident from documents like minutes of meetings, they must be unequivocal and deliberate, indicating an intention to be bound.
9. Furthermore, this Court in CS(OS) 311/2021 titled Smt Neeru Mehra v. Smt Astha Ghai Walia &Anr extensively discussed the aforementioned decisions and held as under:-
"9. The scope of the aforenoted rule is that if there is no dispute between the parties with respect to certain aspects of the case and if there are no pleadings or otherwise such an admission as to make it evident that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed with respect to the same aspect, then, he should be able to obtain such relief on the basis of the admission so made. The primary aim of the rule is to provide a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the admissions made by the opposite party.
10.The aforesaid legal position has been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court concerning Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. In particular, the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, has put to rest the object and scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which reads as under:
"12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the Objects and Reasons 1 (2000) 7 SCC 120 2 (2011) 15 SCC 273 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:12:31 set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled". We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed..."
11.In Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd, the Supreme Court observed that:
"11. It is true that a judgment can be given on an "admission"
contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a clear "admission" which can be acted upon.."
12.Similarly, in the recent judgment titled Rajesh Mitra v. Karnani Properties Ltd. the Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed that the legal position concerning Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is well-settled and rendered the following findings:
"3.... It is for the courts to see whether any statement in the pleadings or otherwise amounts to an admission of such a nature as to inspire the confidence of the court to pass judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. It will depend upon the content and kind of statement/admission which may vary from case to case. In other words, it would depend upon the totality of facts and circumstances of a particular given case. In the present case, here, it is not a 'clear admission' as is being made out. Moreover, where the question and its answer are both a mixed question of fact and law, as in the present case, a so called This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:12:31 'admission' against the law can never be an "admission" as visualised under Order XII Rule 6. However, more on this later. Order XII Rule 6 is meant for speedy disposal of the suits in some cases but on the risk of repetition, we would like to caution that unless there is a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and unconditional admission, courts should not exercise their discretion under the Rule because judgment on admissions is without a trial which may even preclude a party to challenge the matter on merits in the court of appeal. The provision of law, which is meant for the expeditious disposal of appropriate cases, should therefore be cautiously exercised and it should never come in the way of any defendant denying him the valuable right of contesting the claim..."
13.The aforesaid legal position has also been considered by this Court in the decision cited by learned counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Dinesh Sharma. Paragraph no. 29 of the aforesaid decision, reads as under:
"29. It is a settled law that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is an enabling provision that confers discretion to the Court for ensuring speedy justice on admission to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim. As noted above, such admissions can be in the form of pleadings or otherwise i.e., in the documents, correspondence, etc. placed on record. It can be oral or in writing; the admission can be constructive admission as well as without it being specific or expressive, which can be inferred from vague and evasive denials in the written statement while responding to specific pleas taken in the plaint. I must state that the appellant/defendant has relied upon the judgments which have been referred to above. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down in the said judgments in as much as, (i) a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is not a matter of right, rather is a matter of discretion of the Court; (ii) to constitute a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission, the Trial Court has to see the overall effect of the pleadings and documents. For a judgment on admission to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court has to see as to whether the admission of facts is plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal and go to the root of the matter, which would entitle the other party to succeed; (iii) if the issue raised, involve the mixed question of fact and law, the same has to be adjudicated by way of evidence; (iv) the discretion conferred under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:12:31
14.Therefore, it is evident from the aforenoted exposition of law that under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court must, at the outset, determine whether the admission of facts is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In case the issues raised involve mixed questions of fact and law, these must be resolved through the presentation and evaluation of evidence. More importantly, the discretion vested in the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC must be exercised in a judicious and non-arbitrary manner, ensuring adherence to the principles of justice and fairness."
10. Paragraph no. 8 of the written statement, if considered in the right perspective, would indicate that defendant no.1 has propounded an alternative submission of family settlement amongst the siblings and the wife of Late Mr. Yashpal Aggarwal. Therefore, when an averment claiming the existence of a prior family settlement amongst the parties has been made in the written statement, there is no intention evident on behalf of defendant no.1 to concede to the case set up by the plaintiff. Rather, defendant no.1 in the written statement has made an equivocal assertion controverting the stand of the plaintiff.
11. The aforenoted rival contentions by the parties would require a trial wherein both parties make an attempt to prove their case.
12. Since there does not seem to be any unequivocal admission in the written statement by defendant no.1, the Court is unable to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
13. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 260/2021 and I.A. 6846/2021 (STAY)
15. List this matter on 23.07.2025 before the concerned Joint Registrar for taking further necessary steps in accordance with extant rules.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:12:31
16. Thereafter, once the pleadings are completed, list this matter before the Court on the date to be assigned by the Joint Registrar.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MAY 15, 2025 aks/mj Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:12:31