Delhi High Court
Jai Mata Builders vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 20 September, 2012
Author: M.L. Mehta
Bench: M.L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 638/2012 & CM Nos. 9514-15/2012
Date of Decision: 20.09.2012
JAI MATA BUILDERS .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Adv.
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
This petition is directed against the order dated 27.04.2012 whereby application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was dismissed.
The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and recovery against the respondent/defendant stating himself to be the owner of premises measuring 3594 square feet in the building at C-1/3, Laxmi Tower, Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi, which was orally let out to the respondent/defendant with effect from 06.11.1991 and by the renewed oral lease deed 06.11.1994. The application under Order 12 CM(M) 638.2012 Page 1 of 3 Rule 6 CPC was filed seeking passing of judgment and decree based on the admissions allegedly made by the respondent/defendant in the written statement. In the application it is averred that the respondent/defendant has admitted the relationship as also the receipt of notice and thus, the petitioner was entitled to judgment and decree on its admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the written statement, it is seen that the respondent/defendant has raised certain triable issues and the admissions which are alleged to have been made by it, are not clear and unequivocal, warranting straight passing of judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner. In the written statement, the respondent has averred the suit to be barred under Section 69 of Partnership Act as also the suit being not maintainable for want of requisite court fee. It was also averred that the lease was not oral, but written and that no notice, as alleged, was given by the petitioner under Transfer of Property Act. Further, it was averred that the plaintiff had sold 2671 square feet of the total area of 3594 sq.ft. There is also a plea raised with regard to the rent being inclusive of maintenance charges. From CM(M) 638.2012 Page 2 of 3 the averments, as set out by the respondent in the WS, as noted above, it cannot be said that the respondent/defendant had made unambiguous and unequivocal admissions. That being so, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the learned ADJ. There being no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 awanish CM(M) 638.2012 Page 3 of 3