Delhi District Court
M/S Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs Rameshwar on 27 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARVINDER SINGH JOHAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS 510/17
CNR NO.DLND01-005793-2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. M/S Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
(A. Company incorporated under the Companies Act),
Having its registered office
At 25, Vaishali Nagar,
Bhopal, M.P.
Through its Authorized Signatory
Sh. Sanjay Ratra
2. M/s. Aaryavrat Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
(A Company incorporated under the Companies Act)
Having its registered office at MX-168,
Sector E-7, Arera Colony, Bhopal, M.P.
Through its Authorized Signatory
Sh. Sanjay Ratra
3. Sh. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal
S/o Late R. R. Agrawal
R/o B-35, NDSE-1, New Delhi
....PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. Sh. Rameshwar,
S/o Sh. Shadi Ram
R/o Village Rajokri,
New Delhi 110038
CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.1/26
2. Sh. Shishu Pal Aliash Shish Pal
Adopted son of Sh. Bansi,
R/o Village Rajokri
New Delhi 110038
....DEFENDANTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT : 13.02.2025
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 18.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27.02.2025
DECISION : SUIT DECREED
ORDER
27.02.2025
1. This order of mine shall dispose of application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC filed by plaintiff no.1 & 2 for judgment on admissions which is filed on 01.04.2019.
2. Brief facts of the present suit are : That present suit has been filed by the original plaintiff Sh. Shyam Sundar Kanoria against defendant no.1 & 2, wherein, he claims to be in possession of the land bearing no Khasra No.854 (4-16), 857/2 Min. (0-2), 858 min. (3-13), 858 min. (1-3), 859 min. (3-13), 859 min. (1-3), 860 min. (2-8), 861 min. (2-8), 864/2 (1-13), 864/2 (0-19), 865 min. CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.2/26 (2-4) and 865 min.(2-12), situate in the revenue estate of Village Rajokri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, District South West, New Delhi.
3. Plaintiff claims to be in possession in the suit property on the basis of various Sale Deeds in his favour after which, a Mutation of the said land was done in the name of the plaintiffs. Defendants are family members of original owner who has sold the property to plaintiff. Therefore, defendants have no right in the suit property. Plaintiff further pleaded after taking over the possession of the suit property, defendant started harassing the plaintiff and threatened to dispossess him from the suit property due to malafide intention of the defendants. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, wherein, he has an apprehension of forcefully dispossession by defendant no.1 & 2, who are family members of the original Bhumidar. Thereby seeking that defendants, their associates, agents, nominees, assigns etc. may be restrained from, in any manner, interfering or disturbing the plaintiff in his peaceful cultivatory possession of the suit land, from trespassing into the suit land or an part thereof and from CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.3/26 dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land.
4. In the present suit, defendants have filed a joint written statement and replication was also filed by the original plaintiff. At the time of filing of the present suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted on 13.05.2009 in I.A.6171/09, whereby, defendants were restrained from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the plaintiff during the pendency of the present suit. Defendants were restrained from trespassing over the suit property and dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land.
5. In their jointly filed Written Statement, the defendants have raised a preliminary objection of non maintainability of the present suit and they claimed themselves to be in possession of another part of the suit property. Defendants pleaded that complete chain of the documents has not been filed by the plaintiff and none of the documents have been executed by the defendants. The defendants are coparceners and suit property is a CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.4/26 joint Hindu family property where they are owner of the suit property is the claim of the defendant. They further pleaded that another suit is filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by defendants challenging the Sale Deed in respect of the suit property as consent of the defendants was not taken. The defendants further claim that GPA executed is a forged document and said GPA was signed after the death of the alleged GPA Holder and on these basis, they claim to be owner of the suit property.
6. During the pendency of the present suit, the original plaintiff Sh. Shyam Sundar Kanoria has transferred his rights, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff no.1, 2 & 3 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Aaryavrat Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal respectively by way of registered Sale Deed for consideration.
7. An application under Order XXII Rule 10 has been filed by the subsequent purchaser there an application bearing I.A. CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.5/26 No.9357/2011 for their substitution as plaintiff was filed and said application was allowed by the Joint Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29.05.2012. Subsequently, plaintiff no.3 was also substituted vide order dated 27.03.2014.
8. The present application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has been filed by the substituted plaintiffs on the ground that vide order dated 13.05.2009 in I.A No.6171/2009, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, whereby, defendants were restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the suit. The present plaintiffs plead that they purchased the property during the pendency of the suit from the original plaintiffs and they were substituted as plaintiffs in place of original plaintiff. After Plaintiff's purchased the property, they have taken over the possession of the suit property.
9. The basic premise of the present application under order XII Rule 6 of CPC is on four counts. Firstly, the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.6/26 dated 13.05.2009, whereby, defendants were restrained from the disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff along with restraining the defendants from trespassing in the suit property and from dispossession of the plaintiff. Secondly, the statement of Sh. Amit Sibbal, Ld. Counsel on 13.05.2009 who had appeared for the defendants and admitted the fact of plaintiff being in possession over the suit property and the statement that their possession will not be disturbed during the pendency of the present suit, while the matter was pending for adjudication on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Thirdly, another statement of a different counsel namely Sh. Pawan Upadhayay, who admitted the fact of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 01.10.2015. Lastly, when the defendant had filed a written complaint vide DD No.50B dated 03.04.2011 at Police Station: Vasant Kunj against the plaintiff for forcefully dispossessing defendant no.2 from the suit property. It is also an admitted position of the plaintiffs that they have settled the dispute with defendant no.1 on 28.05.2013, thereby, the decree is CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.7/26 not pressed against defendant no.1. Suffice to note herein that right of defendant no.2 to file reply to application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC already stands closed vide order dated 15.07.2023.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. Before adjudicating the present application, it is very important to clearly state the position qua admissions and its ramification on the outcome of the present application. The terms admissions is defined under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 15 of BSA), which clearly establishes that if any party makes a statement in oral or documentary or in electronic form, relevant to the fact in issue and giving an inference to that effect, it will be termed as an admission. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act is hereby reproduced:
17. Admission defined.--
An admission is a statement, 1 [oral or CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.8/26 documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
The consequences of any admission made by any party is defined under Section 31 of Indian Evidence Act whereby, if an admission is made by one party then that party is estopped from recusing from such an admission. Whereas, if both the parties are stating the same fact then the consequences of such a situation is provided under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereby, no issue is required to be framed on such admission. Section 31 and 58 of Indian Evidence Act are hereby reproduced:
31. Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.--
Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
58. Facts admitted need not be proved.--
CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.9/26 No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
12.Now, as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order XII Rule 6 deals with such situation, whereby, if there are admissions by the parties then a judgment on admission can be passed if there are no triable issue left in the suit. Order XII Rule 6 of CPC have been reproduced hereunder:-
Order XII Rule 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 CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.10/26 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 pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
13.By relying on the above mentioned provisions, it can safely be assumed that in a situation where admissions are made by both the parties and no triable issue is left in the case then a judgment on admission can be passed on such an admission.
14.Now, coming to the fact of the present case, it is admitted fact that an ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this suit vide order dated 13.05.2009 in I.A. No.6171/2009 whereby, the defendants were restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.11/26 property along with further restraining the defendants from trespassing and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The said order is hereunder reproduced:-
IA No. 6171/2009 (of the plaintiff u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC) The plaintiff in this suit for permanent injunction seeks interim relief to the same effect i.e. of restraining the defendants from interfering or disturbing the plaintiff?s peaceful cultivatory possession of the suit land and from trespassing into the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom. The sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and the mutation entries and the other entries in the revenue records copies of which have been filed, prima facie show the plaintiff to be in possession of the land. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the land subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land and without any boundary.
The plaintiff has made out a case for grant of ex parte ad interim relief.CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.12/26
The defendants their agents, associates, assigns, till the disposal of this application are restrained from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the plaintiff, trespassing over the land and/or from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said land.
Issue notice. Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, thereto be filed within four weeks thereafter.
To be listed for hearing after completion of service, pleadings and admission/denial of documents.
The provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied within three days.
Dasti.
15.Further, while adjudicating an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs, no reply was filed by the defendants and only a statement was given by Sh. Amit Sibbal, Ld. counsel for the defendants thereby admitting to the CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.13/26 fact of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property with further assurance of complying with order dated 13.05.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as hereunder:
16.Interestingly, counsel for defendant no.2 was changed and Mr. Pawan Upadhayay appeared for the defendants had also admitted to the fact of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property along with assurance of not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Relevant part of the said order dated 01.10.2015 is hereunder produced:
Issue notice. Reply be filed by defendant No.2 within four weeks from today. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter. Defendant No. 2 is to strictly comply with the orders dated 13th May, 2009 and 29th May, 2012. Learned counsel for the plaintiff's submits that the said orders are not being complied with by defendant No.2 who is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.14/26 submits that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property.
Therefore the question of dispossessing the plaintiffs does not arise. I am not inclined to express any opinion in this regard at this stage, however, I am clear in my mind that both orders dated 13th May, 2009 and 29th May, 2012 must be complied with by the parties if police assistance is necessary, the same be provided."
17.After two counsels for defendants admitting to the fact of possession of plaintiff over the suit property, the prima facie fact of possession of plaintiff over the suit property can not be denied relying upon Section 31 & 58 of Indian Evidence Act. This observation of the court qua the possession of plaintiff over the suit property is further supported by the act of defendant no.2 on the basis of a written police complaint vide DD No.50 B dated 30.04.2011 at Police Station: Vasant Kunj against the plaintiffs for forcefully dispossessing defendant no.2 from the possession over the suit property. After his own complaint, this fact can be CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.15/26 conclusively drawn that plaintiffs are in the possession of the suit property.
18.Despite of clear cut admissions by the defendant no.2 and his two counsels, he argued the application by raising two objections.
Firstly, he stated that he is not bound by the statement/admissions made by the counsel before the Court and secondly, he claims to be a coparcener in the suit property, which he claims to be ancestral. Although the fact of possession is clearly established but both the arguments of the defendant are devoid of any merits. The aspect of admissions by the counsels binds the party is a settled law of land and defendant cannot recuse from those admissions by relying upon the following judgments:-
(i) Swatika Jain Vs. Asian Hotels North Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4848;
(ii) Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar 2020 13 SCC 188.
In the first judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has clearly CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.16/26 laid down the law on the admission given by the counsel. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgments are re-produced hereunder:
9. This court expresses its dismay at the attempt of the appellant to seek to re-agitate the same issue/s which stood foreclosed by the order dated 31.05.2023, by seeking to blame the counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant on that day. The law does not permit a litigant to resile out of concessions or factual statements made before a court during the course of the proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to BSNL v. Subash Chandra Kanchan1, where the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"20. Furthermore, in terms of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a litigant is represented by an advocate. A CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.17/26 concession made by such an advocate is binding on the party whom he represents.
If it is binding on the
parties, again subject
to just exceptions,
they cannot at a later
stage resile therefrom.
The matter may,
however, be different
if a concession is
made on a question of
law. A wrong
concession on legal
question may not be
binding upon his
client. Here, however,
despite the stand taken
by the appellant in its
written statement
before the High Court
the learned advocate
consented to
appointment of a
CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.18/26
person as an arbitrator
by the High Court in
exercise of its
jurisdiction
under Section 11 of
the 1996 Act, in our
considered view, the
same should not be
permitted to be resiled
from. A person may
have a legal right but
if the same is waived,
enforcement thereof
cannot be insisted."
10. In Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet v.
Noor Ahmed Shariff2, the Supreme
Court has again held that a
concession made by a counsel on a
question of fact is binding on the
client. Similar observations have been made in Paul Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Estate Officer Life Insurance Corporation (2006) 8 SCC 279 (2011) 12 SCC 658 of India & Anr3 and Om Prakash v. Suresh CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.19/26 Kumar.
Even in the judgment of Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically cleared the position that parties are bound by the statement made by the counsel in the proceeding before the Court. Relevant para no.4, 12 & 13 are produced as under:
4. The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions. For that, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.
12. The moot question is: whether the appellant should be bound by the statement made by his counsel before the High Court that the respondent- tenant will be reinducted in equal area in the newly constructed building within one month i.e. on or CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.20/26 before 30.11.2017 from the date of completion of the construction work i.e. 31.10.2017. From the tenor of the statement made before the High Court on behalf of the appellant, it is obvious that it is an unequivocal statement made by the counsel engaged by the appellant to espouse his (appellant's) cause before the High Court. It is not the case of the appellant that he had expressly instructed his counsel not to make such a statement. Further, the statement was in respect of the commitment of the appellant qua the subject matter of the proceedings in which the counsel was engaged and instructed to appear. Not only that, right from the beginning and even before this Court, an attempt was made by the parties to explore possibility of working out an amicable solution, as is evident from the order dated 9.1.2017 before the respondent was put to notice of these CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.21/26 appeals, and more particularly, dated 14.11.2017.
13. Considering the above, the appellant cannot now be allowed to resile from the statement made before the High Court, which the High Court justly declined to undo in the review petition filed by the appellant for that purpose. In the peculiar facts of this case, the decision of this Court in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society (supra) will be of no avail to the appellant. Inasmuch as, it is not a case where the counsel, who made the statement was not engaged by the appellant before the High Court. The engagement was in respect of eviction proceedings and the statement was in relation to the commitment of the appellant qua the subject matter thereof and being an unequivocal statement, it will be binding on the appellant. In any case, even this Court showed indulgence CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.22/26 to the appellant on the basis of impression given to this Court about the possibility of at least sparing a small room for the respondent, which was the basis for issuing notice to the respondent, as is evident from the orders dated 9.1.2017 and 15.2.2017.
19.These two judgments conclusively decide the issue that party is bound by the statement of the counsel before the Court. Even otherwise, if the defendants were aggrieved by such an admission, still no action has been initiated by them to correct the aspect of admissions made by the counsel way back in the year 2012 & 2015. Thereby, the first arguments of defendant no.2 is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.
20.Now, coming to the second arguments of defendant that present suit property is a coparcenery property and he is a coparcener in the suit property is also devoid of any logical merits. Primarily for the reason that present suit has been filed only seeking protection of possession over the suit property without any CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.23/26 hindrances from defendant no.2. The present suit is not qua the title adjudication qua the suit property. It is also stated by the defendant himself that there are three pending matters for adjudicating the title dispute. The details whereof are as under:
(i) Suit Bearing no. CS (OS) 1459/2010 title Rameshwar & Ors Vs Savita Jindal & Ors against the Plaintiff;
(ii) Suit bearing no. CS.55478/2016 Title Shish Pal Yadav & Ors Vs M/s Soliiate Farm Ors;
(iii) Suit Bearing no. 55523/2016 Title Om Prakash & Ors Vs Suresh Aggarwal & Ors.
Thereby, even his second arguments qua coparcenery property has no leg to stand upon and thereby rejected.
21.Now by applying the settled law of the land on the facts of the present case, it can be conclusively adjudicated by this court that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit property on the basis of statements of two different counsels for the defendants along CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.24/26 with police complaint filed by defendant no.2. Further, it can also be conclusively adjudicated that the parties are bound by the statements given by their respective counsels. Looking at the entire case, the only prayer of the plaintiff is qua protection of peaceful possession over the suit property and restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property and dispossessing the plaintiff from it. Since, the factum of possession is established and it is a settled law that all the legal possessions are required to be protected by law, thereby, there is no triable issue left in the present matter. I am of the considered opinion that application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC should be allowed and suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the present suit stands decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC with the following reliefs in favour of the plaintiff; (A) Defendants are restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property; (B) Defendants are further restrained from trespassing into the suit property;
(C) Defendants are further restrained from dispossession of the CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing P.L. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.25/26 plaintiffs from the suit property.
22.In view of the afore-said findings, the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC stands allowed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room, after necessary compliance.
(Harvinder Singh Johal) DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal NDD/PHC/ND/27.02.2025 CS No.510/2017 M/s. Surewin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Anr. Page No.26/26