Delhi District Court
Pahlad Singh vs Balbiri & Ors on 4 February, 2015
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN : ADDITIONAL DISTIRCT
JUDGE04 : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No.625/14
In the matter of :
Pahlad Singh .......Plaintiff
Versus
Balbiri & Ors. ........Defendant
ORDER :
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC moved by the defendants.
2 The plaintiff has filed the present suit with the averment that he is the owner in respect of the plot bearing no. 38B, measuring about 50 sq. yards situated in village Shahpur Jat, New Delhi49 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). It is contended that Sh. Roop Ram had allegally occupied the suit property and thereafter plaintiff approached Sh. Roop Ram to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property. It is further the case of plaintiff that plaintiff and Sh. Roop Ram were residents of the same village and were having good relations. However, Sh. Roop Ram did not vacate the said property despite repeated requests and unfortunately Sh. Room Ram died and Contd....1 of 8 : 2 :
thereafter, the legal heirs of Sh. Roop Ram i.e defendants illegally retained the possession of the suit property.
3 The defendants were summoned who appeared and after filing the WS, they filed an application U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC which was contested by the plaintiff. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.11.2012 has framed the following preliminary issues for disposal of said application :
i. Whether the plaint is liable to be dismissed for want of disclosure of cause of action?
ii. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of locusstandii of plaintiff or suit is barred by section 41(i) & (j) of the Specific Relief Act?
iii. Whether the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation? iv. Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction or insufficiently stamped?
4 Thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments on 05.02.13. Thereafter, the defendants moved the present application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC on 27.09.2013.
5 In the present application, defendants have sought passing of a decree U/o XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of the following admissions :
i. That the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the MCD, DDA, SHO PS Hauz Khas, New Delhi and the present defendants Contd....2 of 8 : 3 :
in respect of adjoining open public chowk to the suit property bearing no. 100/2012 titled 'Pahlad Singh Vs. MCD & Ors" which was dismissed by the court of Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, Ld. SCJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 17.05.13 and the plaintiff has preferred appeal against the said order. It is further averred that in the said suit, the plaintiff has filed GPA dated 11.01.2011 executed by him in favour of his son, Devender Kumar. In said GPA, the plaintiff has specifically described the location and directions / subject property of suit no. 100/2012 wherein he has specifically admitted that property of Sh. Roop Ram is situated on the southern side of the suit property.
ii. It is further averred in the said application that except the registered GPA dated 11.01.201, there are other documents like Award No. 2034 dated 24.11.1967, village Shahpur Jat, New Delhi and the reference U/s 18 and 3031 of the L.A. Act regarding enhancement of the compensation and disbursement of the compensation awarded by the Ld. LAC. In said award which clearly reveals that there is specific admissions of the plaintiff about the acquisition of his land and release of suit property from the acquisition vide award no.2034. 6 Accordingly, the defendants have prayed that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and may be dismissed on the basis of admissions mentioned in the application.
Contd....3 of 8 : 4 :
7 In reply to the said application, the plaintiff has stated that no admission has been made by him in the plaint or otherwise and the application is frivolous and misuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed. It is specifically denied that there was admission of the plaintiff in GPA dated 11.01.2011 and the application has been moved just to harass the plaintiff; land in question was never acquired and the same was released from the acquisition proceedings. All other averments made in the application have been controverted and denied.
8 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicants / defendants who has argued that admission of the plaintiff in the GPA dated 11.01.2011 and other documents like award no.2034 dated 24.11.1967 are unambiguous and clear admissions of the plaintiff and as such because of that admissions, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It was further argued that in the site plan filed by the plaintiff, the property of the defendants has been shown in southern side of the suit property. In the site plan of the defendants, the southern side has been shown as public chowk. It is further argued that GPA dated 11.01.2011 was executed by the plaintff in favour of his son who is now the plaintiff. In the Award no. 2034 dated 24.11.1967, land bearing khasra no. 239/2 has been released and the said land is the suit property. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon Karam Kapahi Vs. M/s Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753; Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd.
Contd....4 of 8 : 5 :
Vs. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120; Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. Vs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr., (2005) 11 SCC 279; and Sushil Bhardwaj Vs. Ved Prakash Shastri, CS (OS) NO.995/2002.
9 In the judgment titled Sushil Bhardwaj Vs. Ved Prakash Shastri, CS (OS) NO.995/2002, dated 28.08.2008 relied upon by Ld. Counsel for applicant, in para no.15, it was held that the inference of admissions can be drawn on the basis of pleadings even in the shape of application Under Order 20 Rule 6 CPC and the affidavit, etc of the parties. 10 Hon'ble High Court has referred a case of Shikharchand Vs. Mst. Bari Bai, AIR 1974 MP 75 and was pleased to hold as under :
"It is open to the court to base the judgment on statement made by a party not only in the pleadings but also do hors the pleadings. The Court crucially also held that such admissions may be made either expressly or constructively. It may also be noticed that a provision under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is flexible enough to enable the Court to dismiss the suit if the situation so warrants. The provision is not confined to an order decreeing the claims of the plaintiff, against the defendant; the terminology used is wide enough to comprehend situations where admissions either in the pleadings or 'otherwise' can result in dismissal of the suit, which would result in the drawing up of a decree. The question on the merits here, therefore, is whether the two documents relied upon by the defendants i.e. Exb.D1 and D2 are unbiguous and clear admissions which should persuade the Court to dismiss the suit."
11 In the case of Sushil Bhardwaj Vs. Ved Prakash Shastri, CS Contd....5 of 8 : 6 :
(OS) NO.995/2002, (refer supra) dated 28.08.2008 there was clearcut admission of the plaintiff in admitting the documents Exb.D1 & D2 and it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that the same were unambiguous and clear admissions which persuade the court to dismiss the suit.
12 The admissions on the basis of which dismissal of the suit has been sought by the defendants in this case are of such nature which are not unambiguous and clear admissions One admission is pointed out to be in the GPA dated 11.01.2011, copy of which filed herein. The original of the same is not filed. Copy of a document is not a document in the eyes of law. Since the original of the said document is not on record and such admission has been denied by the plaintiff in reply to the application. The said copy of GPA cannot be considered to be an admitted document containing unambiguous admission of the plaintiff which may warrant dismissal of his suit. 13 Another admission was claimed by the defendants on the basis of award no. 2034 dated 24.11.1967 in reference no. 18 and 3031 of the L.A. Act stating that those proceedings contained the specific admission of the plaintiff about the acquisition of land and release of the suit property from the acquisition. It was specifically argued on behalf of plaintiff in that regard that proceedings of Award or reference as being claimed by applicant are not such documents which are executed or authored by the plaintiff so that anything Contd....6 of 8 : 7 :
mentioned about the property of the plaintiff or of the suit property can be deemed to be admissions of the plaintiff for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
14 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 724/2005 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kehar Singh decided on 11.5.2006 (MANU/DE/8646/2006), it was pleased to hold as under: "6. The powers under order 12 rule 6 of the Code has to be exercised judicially on the facts and circumstances of each case. The admission on the basis of which the Court wishes to pass a decree has to be unambiguous, clear and unconditional. There is no doubt that in a suit there can be more than one decree passed at different stages and each decree being separate and independent is enforceable in accordance with law, was the principle stated by MANU/SC/0505/1970 Chanchal V. Jalaluddin. Admission understood in its common parlance still must be a specific admission. There is very fine distinction between unambiguous and specific admission on the one hand and vague averments of facts which, if proved, could even tantamount to an admission on the part of a party to the suit. The Court has to consider the need for passing a decree on admission under these provisions only in the cases of first category and normally decline in the cases of the later category."
15 On the basis of above discussion and the laws discussed by me and law laid down by Hon'ble High Court in Charanjit Singh Vs. Kehar Singh Contd....7 of 8 : 8 :
decided on 11.5.2006 (MANU/DE/8646/2006), admissions as claimed by the defendants / applicants in this application are not found to be unambiguous and specific admissions of the plaintiff. Because of these reasons, the application of the defendants is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Dictated and announced in the open court on 04.02.2015 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ADJ04 (South) Saket Courts / New Delhi 04.02.2015 Contd....8 of 8