M/S Mars Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs Mr. B T Vijay S/O Late Thimmarayappa on 30 July, 2010

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Mars Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs Mr. B T Vijay S/O Late Thimmarayappa on 30 July, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

aw

_ e

IN THE HIGH COURT or KA}€NATAK.A, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE sow DAY OF JULY ztjzi.

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  4 "  

WRIT PETITION Nos. 2o56;:.13637 f:AN:5%%16S*>;g},Qj;;¢T T
2010 [GM--CE9l % * =   
W.P.No.2056/2010    '

BETWEEN :

I. M/ I\/larss I*§11f(>.1"p1*i:;¢S --I'vtfLtgh,h " " _
Marathi Authorised Séwirit:.S'1,ai,i<)11,..  " --
No.4 E, As11wat..h1'1a1ga;;__' V _  "   i_
Sa1n}'aynaga;f:Mvai11 Road', '£3ang21'EQ1te--'9'a1, '

Re1.31'c';\s'en1:_éd  ifs Dir€%(:i.b1"s,'  " 

Pe1[iii011:e'1'::"2 é~a.r.3.r;_1-_3'.   -- 

2. M1'.V(}_._M_zih.¢éh'--¥f;1.1n'1z1_i',  ' '
S /15 DI'.SJ*i','RE111T§§}L1,.' 
Aged e3.b'0ut ii 8"-jJéa1fs';~  
    
M / s Iviars EI1ffC'fI.3iTiS€S"'PV1..Ltd..
E\/12::1'111hi";'\1.iV1'}':Q1§iSet! S€§:'vi(:<-? St 21 E11011 ,
V  0: #1 , Aslivrzgi.1'1nz:1gz1r.
v-j.:1;ym1gz1.1" Mai' 11" Road ,B2111gaI(>:'c*--94.

V r'3~r_11"1"-..E;~I 11'J'iéx_E%'"5"i-:1 (111,

"-T'_'_'«.'\./A/'0 l"2'L~1,.C }":'3:.'Af1"'1i1 Kumar,

A Maj 01'. ' I)ii1'§ct. 0 1'.

/]\2Ia1=';é§ I:3111'.c1'}T)1'is<3s Pv1,.LtCI..
Man"u.1_hi AL.1t,h01'iscd S(':'1'ViC('? St"z1t.ion.
.A j No.4-I. A.sh\[w11'Th1'1agz11", -
~ V S.a1;1_jz1y11z-1ga1* Main Road,
V' 2}3é:u1gal()1'(v94.

my ;

. . .I5'ETITIONI§RS

M     Sn'. E{.S.Nz1g"z11'£1}21 Rm), Aclvo('at.e.)



And

1. IVI/ I\/Iars Ir31'"1i,e1'}::>1'isr:*s Pv1.I,iCI..
I\/Iaruthi aui.I10rised Service Slaiion.
No.41. Ashwathnagar,

S2-1njay11ag;a11- Main Roz-1d.
i:3a11gaIo1x~.~94.

Rc1'):'<>se1'11'(:cI by 125 I,)1'1"ec~.ic>1'55.
I"c1iiioncrs 2 arlci 3.

2. Mr.G.MaIu--rsh I(L1111ar.   >-
S/0 I,-)1'.SI'I.RE1T11E1I1,1. 
Aged aboui 48 years,
i\/E2111-c1gi11g DI1'E'.C'I.{)1'. , _
§VE/ Mars I£z"1i.e1'1:)rises I¥'\fI.i,if'CI._.
Manx {hi A11I'h()1'iS€CI Service'. "IE~.IIé1*{ 11.01"}.
N(.).41.. Ash\xrz1tI111.21g.§;j11'.  " 
Sa11_jz1y1'1a1g;21a' I\/Iain vR(;~2.;d. 
If3ar1§§a1I()re«94.  I 7

3. Smi..Ir'Ii'I"na f3'i;71(tI11"," » 4'  .
W/V0. I1;1':.é' VE3."A.i'i;i;],__ I_{b.!_1'Ic1_I_'.  I'
M;ij()r, I","}iA]','§»:%(.',I()I':I_,'jV I   _
M/Vs I\/_Iau'5s{ EIi":1"E'_,i'1')*i'>}'.\S"' _ }*'vi;I,..1d..
Ma11'L.11.1'1«i 2'-\tII_I"II}~I":I":3, . Ci' < Sén{i..cre S1a1'i01'1.

N0 . 4 I"; IAsh\.\Ié;1,11 '1';.eAigaV1I'b 
S;111ja1y1'i"c:2 Q3 1' .D/VI';;.1i11"._R()':;-'Id.
4E32¥L1/xg.§2:1I()1'e3'C3.%§_I~.

 

 

. . . RESPOND ENTS

  'vI§3j,*--«S1'i.Ij'I{;S.Nagaraja Rae, Adv()(:ai',e.)

__  I'etiI:i()n is f1'.IeCI undel' Arti(:Ies 226 and 227
0I"tI1F: Cm'}.st.i':.L1Ei011 of India p1'z1yi'ng to quash the order dated

 21~1I+.'2009 on IA No.8 fiied u1'"1CIe1' Order XII Ruie 6 Civil
 » A}":'VKII('){_)t".CI1.11'(,'. Code in OS I\I0.6246/2005, on {he fiie of $116 III
 A.r__Ic_%.i'i'.ic)z121l Ciiy Civii .J11dge. E:3z1.1'1ga1I01'c? in so far: as xvhether
"I119 quié :1()1i(?e  in acc()rcIz111c.e wiih law and to akiow
__§.A.N::>.8 {Z11'1(.I dc*(:1'ec the 51m'. I01' pC)ssessi(m.



W.P.No. 16672/2010

BETWEEN :

. M/5 _}\/Ia'-11'$ EI"1tt31'pI'iSf3S Pvt.E.td..

Maruthi A1.z1'.110n'sed Service Station.
No.4 3 . Ash\~&«'a't.111121g211',
San_ja1y1'1agz1z' Main Road.
I?38.1'1ga101'€w94.

Represcz'1t'ed by its I)i1'e(:io1.'s.
I57'@1iti0r1e.1's 2 and 3.

M1'.G.Mahesh Kumar.

S/0 D1'.S1'1'.Rama1L1.

Aged about 48 years.
Mamiging Director,   _ 
M/S Mars E11ie1'131'i5:_3é§V-Pv1,._'L'd_.,  ,_ , A' ..
Maruthi A1.1t'.h0r1sed E-3*::1fvic'e_S'§.a.iioi1{  M 
No.41. Ashwathnaga1'. " ._  2  2 =
Sa1'1jay1'1agar Main ragga; 
B2-1.::1g21E<.)':'e_; 941i  _  ' ' -- 7

S1311.1.--ii111T:i7E3.§ 1'1dL?;. ' 

W /0 12:21.6 £3.A;riii'»,KL111"iaaj."---- '

Mzljor, Dire<':1g)1*;  "    
M/ M;-yrs' EI1IV.'('_"1'}l)V1'AiSL",&3""P\/T..L{,d..
M_z1_m1,hi Q'. LIE .}1()Vr ése'c1. Séivitte Stat £0 11.

" tic); 4*} , Ashﬂxrﬁhlaagalr.
A - "S21;-2;;-21y12.aga1:* I\/{21'i1':"R0aCI.
' g 3 f5e11zg;,1E:)'1'C«:_94.

. . . EJECTITIONERS

 '(By S1"i'.v K..S.Ni21gé11'a1jz1 Ram, Advocate.)

AND:

IvEi'.B.'[".\»'Eja.y,
 S/0 iaie Thimmarayappa.
' Aged Elb01E1. 80 yezlrs.
Resiciimgg at No.2-A.
Anand .2-1;3arm1ez:zi.



R.M.V.I§xE'm1sio11.
S2«.1d21shiv2111e1gz~12"..
£3emg,_{e1i()1'eA8O.

. . .I2Ia${i5O   _

(By S1'i.Kimn Ron, for Lax Piextts &"V"SEWfVL£V$€;V0E'££:1Ci'!_a,." 

Ac1\z0ca1es)

This Writ Petiidion  liked udc1Ve:9'--.A§'iicEéS.226 
of the Consiiiuiion of India p1"z=.yi1'1g 1,0.q{;z:1sI"1 ,:;h'e'v01'de1' datéid V'

24»-4-2010 passed in OS --Ncv;5246}'2o05V, '-.by~..f"r'ne" EH"?

Additi011ai (SE13: Civii Judge. Ba:.1g2;}{)1'<?. 0n'_AI.A./N;).l0 filed
u:'1dt=:r Order XIV R1116 5.1'/w Se--e--€'i{Sn. }"5_1 CI7'C.'~.. 

These petitions 4"1i21vi13gf':'bé3ef1 fh1:ja'rd and reserved
for orders coming on f(V_>V1" f§}I'()D(]LlfIC.¢II}~CI1f of orders. this
day the Court' _me1_d<:= the. i'oi1.0wi«;i3vg;. ~  "

a_:Fir:jst',_dtiV$§*:_;>V\2gfi;i«§ '€111: filed by t1"1('3 defendants

as well' p'l2:ad.i:V1tiff _€;ju»és'tioni11g the cor1'ectness and

1crge1;i'1i~},r}  of.' t,.}1 e""()rd'err..' dated 2lA11~20O9 passed in

 'WI'1€I'('3Ll1'}d€1' applictation filed by

 l\)l:a?'1_i\.'V1dA1,if;f'L1'§1d.3§*'1""'Order XI} Rule 6 read with Section 1.51

C',iV'i1 Pa._'€)Ced1,:re Code has been aliowed in part.

 '1"hc fi mi: wrii pet_i1:i01'}. namely

 ""?..§'\/'b.'E35.AE\I().2056/2010 has bC(;'l'1 }"i1ed by the C1€f€I1daI1tS

$/



before the i1'i_.21.1 Court q_L:est*i<mi.ng f,11e order above
l'€fC]'l.'€.'.C'l to i.e., 2}.w11--2009 where under I.A.N0;"8»f*i}ed

by 1.110 p].21i1'11i.ff' to pass 21 j1,.1dgmen'L and&v....ci¢':£:§t'r:se%;~ for

possession on the adniissicms made by  .fij:r'st" 9'

c1ei'e:n_daIi1{ in O.S.N0.1104/2O(i;iAA'VIias..v 

pent' hoidingg that there eggists rE:~1;1i'§;r3:1shipi.of }e1n'.*dl"ord'=

and i;ena11ii between plz1ir1{.i_f'i"'i'scf;z'1d. defe"1~'..déintfs and 2 in

respe(:i, of suit. scthed'__u'}«3 prbp¢i'ty,_ _ 

3. Se(2()1é._d' writ;j$éi,i.i.~i:;;1;'  ;p}a1ix1i,if"i' is eigainst
U'1L". ve1'y $E1f11;1E'_ iéitciiﬁci' d_a%.iéd 21 1.32009 Wh€l'€tlI}.d€3F the

LA. figlcfdiii'!C~pi;'€1,i.I;Ii_j:ﬁ7..LiHdi€l' orcIei* XII Rule 6 seeking

21 jiiclgmeéili. €1..lf1'C}~.;.'C3650-lféﬂfol' possession of the suit

S('1h_C'C1I.1It3 p}'epe'i'*t:j/ axga.ii1si. lihc cieferidants on the basis

 ()['i-'.s._\é1l;:-g_e(i  E1CiI11'iS'Si'OﬂS riiade by the deik-:r1dant,s in
'Q.'S,NQ,'_i~}_:O4'/'2010 has been reje(:i:ed and ordered to

'}':.rc_')t*:'ecrd' \7é1f§;h'i1't.hc suit on other issues namely issues 2 to

6  iiriplzgned. in this writ: petii:ig_31'1. ¢/



'mi

4. The third 'writ petition rggtmely
W'.P.N'<).16672/2010 is filed by Ck->fe11da11€;s 
the c0r1*eci'ness a.nd legality bf t.i'1<-T?   ~
I.A.N<).10 whereu1'1der the  VV

c.1efenda11t:s 1 and 2 under Ordér 'Ruzie

Secttion 151 of Code of C?,i_iki1V_M Pr(5(7<-3__c'£mfé~._fi3t""f1=ah1ir1g'*

additional issues have. been,r<:j.§éA(:t.éti,
5. The parties are :_'c%ft'%r.1".i?:<:1 to a.S».p"e--r their ranks in
trial Court. ,71The faizcftsj 1_¢«21d.jVi'1"g_'.t.Q'fiziiflg of these writ

pt-étitiolls   "Ei'1'i--(_)kb--*,r":-,j--..x 

 1'; ' V V"he.iv'c i1'1st.ituted the suit
O.S.N»().E§V24§E3,*72€)QE§AA.g)'11.:_u.ihe file of the City Civii Couﬁ

.B?iTi<§:;ai_£51'é. a§§,éIiI1._S1;.~t.11e defezadants for the 1'(i1i("3f of

' 2f£1_1--d recovery of arr(~:ars of rem' am0unt.ing to

RsfE3,87.()»£}_0.i"~ with iluerest at 18% per annum from the

 date ~.Qf';s11it, till date ofpay111en1;.a;11d further dil'€C€;iOf1 to

 1';}:1Lé"*_r_iefe.1'}dants to pay a sur1'1 of Rs."/5,000/~ per month

t§.owa.1'cis c.ie14n1e1ges from the date of suit till the ciatc they

4*'



l'12u'1d over v2';1(t'c11'1£'. possessioirl of the Suit schedule

property to the pla11'1tiff towai'clss"'oeetipatiori <:l>1ai'ge':s_ and

also to hold em enquiry under Order XX Ru1e_'i:2"'of.t,'l1e

Code of Civil Proeeciure. Prior to the 11istitrition.. 

suit. plaintiff had got issued 21 l_e'gA2iVl"i'1<3t,ic:Ae Q'i'1.j}'»§,f242VOO0

under which tenancy of the clei'er_1d}3__r1t xmrae tieri~nir1é;t.Ved',

.21i'1d after the t,ermii'1dtio:n loi:'"t.eria1'1ej,r_ r"e1.i.t's".;1r1a\ze not

been paid. One i11()i'e'i:1ot.iee ()i1e---§5l.V--"i1.2--2004Axﬁfas issued

again by t.eriiiiiiat.ing thet.e:ié1i*1ey._siﬁeej.for the earlier

period the i:'ei'lii--. l"i'c1Cl:ﬂbt':t'2i'i"V a"djt1s'ted._.,.t'roni the advance

E1l"E1()tJVlV"l.!{.lHlV "

52.011 se1'vi<:e'of-..'s.r;immo11s before trial Court,

cieteVI1§:1araté§" Ijﬂavef ei;'.:_t'e1"'ed appearance and filed their

 wri.ttjei1~.si:ett.err1eritﬁtenyiiig plaint averments. On the

lj:;1.s\is _t'3tf_l1vlVie..pleeiclings of the parties trial Court has

.l"lA'3:1_I411€C1v .t;l1ej.-i'o.llowi 11 g issues :
" {vi} A1' Whether plaintiff proves that the D<-zfericiarits
No.1 and 2 are the lessee/t.er1a;r1t in respect

of the suit seliedule property 211136 thereby

exists relatiionship as such'? 



9

(ii) W'het.her piaintiff proves tzhat. the i)ei"e:ei.d--ants

are in arrears of rent.  (riaimeci.w27iifi(}.'e:i*§ so

what is the £1.1.'}1()'L.1l1I'."?"

(iii) Whether piaintiiff 11215.3JtEer1i"iiz32iii;ed«  _t,ev1'12i:nr::y

of the ciefendzirits, ai1aci.vsz*nfnA'e is'i-r;'aec::Q1*'c{anee.

with Iaw'?

(iv) Whether suit of ,{.r'1M'if_"4"'zi)%?.-'1'ivVIF'1'~t-"i.E1"iS"v\'it.!f}j.;£ time'?
(V) Whether piai~iitifi'"i:'§V  to the reliefs

SQ1,i_Ag'11i'_ fox:-3.>

{vi} 1'  O'i°cie_3'**{iif D*ec:ire"e'?'

5,3';  of the Suit. piaintiff filed

an zipplieéitidn ii12_de.r"O.t7c1e1" XII Rule 6 read with Section

  i5if"~()ff._it.iie C<icie.*vef..Civi1 P1°oc:ec11.1re praying that suit be

  aggggiinst the defe.r'1d21_r1t's in View of their

ad'l"YV'}iSSi(.)'I:I'   d to 11 ave. been made in

 O.S.NQi":1104/2001 adniitting that plaintiff is the

 :a.bs§t__~11ite owner of the suit, schedule property and

  __€iefer1dar1ts are iessees on a moriiihiy rent: of Rs.21,000/.

ﬁx



It was also contended that l'vIanagi3'1g Direetoi" of the
defendant. SI'i.S.lVlal1€Sl'l Kumai"  second ciefendant
liacl also aclmitt"ed in his examination--in--ehief
Suit at: paragraph 3, 5, 6 and 7 that  H
owner of suit S(".h(3d1.ll6 property and  V' '
lessees on a. monthly rent  
appli(:at.i(m was resisted b3.="del'<:J1lelaiilt.s V1 
oE_)jeetions to the said  that
plaintiff had mis--rep1=eseiited;:_»iili'i--].e-Zlerateriiig into lease

and also contended  'a.y;ii_1'1is's_siot*i.v"Cannot be relied

1..1}')(3I'1:l5lymtl"1e. ji)lai1:i:'ft.ilT in ._t'l1is sli,ii"t,l and on the basis of said
aclmiss*i.on='the~' sltftzitean_ii'ot...~be decreed. The Court below

on mu1i1sidc?%i*§1_i1gv.ri'va.l'v.eoi1'é:e1'itio11s raised i'o1"rm.1lateci the

 . l"()il-<)lwii..1"i'g point l'oli*"i'ts consi(,ierat.__io_1'1:

   --  I.A.No.8 is entitled to be allowed?"

fial C01,11't by its order clateci 2141-2009

 alTl()\v.eci:'t11e appli(:at.ion in part holding that only issue

 can be answered in the eiffirmat,iVe at that stage

V.-airacl allowed the applieat.i(m. it also held that plaintiff

M



has to proceed with the suit in respect of other issues.

In so far  allowing the application in part defehdlahts

have filed W.P.N0.2O56/2010 and in so

allewing the application as prayedhfor, pla'intiff W 

VV.P.Nc).3687/2010.

5.5. The defendants  an Wunderll

Order 14 Rule 5   Code of
Civil Procedure seeking lhr "(;ll3'fI'p_;¢lX_C5.-dit_i0r1a1 issues
contending i:h'ai;4p'1aifi_tif§' had"wri'ii*s1=epresent.ed about his

'ownersliipl to   had been leased to

the dVei"endalrit's.'*ah'd_'l'1a.tiv----._s'L1ppressed the ownership of
BDA and had._le'asaed  to the first: defendant: and

ii1sp{itei'~:ii' said'-..pvlea_having been taken in the written

~ staterneznttrial Court had not framed additional issues

1--3ow'soVug§.'lj:--.teVplbr and as such it was contendecl that said

additidnvalléissues are required to be framed. The trial

  Cbu.rt. has not called upon the plaintiff to file objections

arid after hea1'i1'1g the argurnems of the learned counsel

4%



for deferlciants 1 and 2 has dismissed the 21ppEi.<*21t;ig11 by
its order dated 24~4~20}O. It is this order 
i_1npL1g11ed in the writ petition N0. E6672/ '
defendant':s.  -   

8. Heard the Iearned 21(1vd::z1t.::1:-S A.a1pf::%a'rihg 'fd1'--._f'I*:_e§

panles  Sri.K.S.Naga1Té1j'a.V.. Rad  the-. L

defen(1am's and Sr:.Kiran_....Ron'=.._ve1ppe:ari,1}g_;§ for the

p1ai11t,iff.

7'. '"l'.'h'_é A§::xr3r1Tei*1i.iciyr1's 4t>f '--iihve.....-- learneci 00111186}

'x

Sri. Kjj.'  a   as L_i'iitlVer:

(.i.}.'I'11e sub'sf;;uﬁ;.ia}"'iss;~L1<2 which has beairirlg on the

maiI;1_ sui*L*(§;1r11:1i)1. decided on the basis of an

21ci'113'isS'i:)n"h--A.ma(1e""'ifi the 8.fﬁC121.ViT, by defeating the

V}-c;11'j'e*»."',:>:'£"e: 1%igh:t"'j..0i' cross examination available to the

c,1£:af§;:r1d2A~1:1'{.§'  AT

"(v!:}'*On the basis of the issues framed piaintiff has

" ._t.(:11df€.1"ed evicience and when there being no cross

W



(:'.XdI'l'1i£'1'c':11Zi()li on tliis issue i'egge11'c1i11g; jural relatizniiship
application has been allowed.
(iii) Admission if any made in 2111}! <~c3¥_}E¥1i:.era1

pmeeeciings ea111i()t be sole basis for dec:id.i11g...t.i;i£:'_'iee'e;ie_

in f¢uzou1* of the piaintiff and ii: is for 

explain the said admission.

{iv} 'r1~ie. word. "Pleading" E}LSi.fOL111d:.'Lrj1A ..C)1;d€f;'.XH d

Rule 8 is referable 1:0 the pleaidiﬁgs in "th.e V'sa':n1egsuit. and
not pleadings of the 0.ih.€)1' emit.  proceedings and
such admissions if  =ea:.1i1Qi:' 'b,e"*examined £11 the

pi"eseJj1if Si_ii{..:iT.

 21;': % Si11,V)}')-L3'..I"{'  submissions praying for

1'(3']'€;'r_;',ﬁ.0i3 0i:ut.hVe 'a1:jp1ixc%a'€"'ioi1 filed under Order XII Rule 6,

 he 'ii'e1iéi'?§:§ 1_1p:)2'i the fc)I10\vii1;,_;' Judgeniems:

 (ii  SC 341 - paragraph 5.
.  Singh Vs. Ja,:1ki' Singh

A   2010 AIR SCW 2937 ~ paragraph 13.

M/s. Jeevan Diesels and Eleciricals Lid. Vs.

M/  Jasbir Singii Charezd,h__a {I--IUF) and anoirher.

W



(iii) (1992) 3 KLJ 685

R. Di.Ii,p Kumar Vs. Rama and aI'1OI.her___"-  V'

[iv] (2004) 13 sec 599 pgfagraphs .«:4i_:'cz:z;:1%.:'1d§{i'.   

Pratima Sinha and o§.h::A=:;.._<Vs..' Sfiuct:3'}2:f Vvfigdmar 

Narain Sinha and others
[U] (1987) 4 SCC 424.'

I).Satyanarayana, Vs. Jaga.dz:;.h'  V"
9. In sL1pp01'\{:\\.,,..Aot"  :SV_ud'{)'111jssiod Vdvtlmt the

21pp1ic?eiti'i(m_;'Y;.i'c>i'fi;had to be allowed

Sri.K.S N'a,ga1'21_jVa«.'RaO;._.1E--af;f:ed C01-H1861 appearing for the

defendantdS~.w0u1VCE_ st:_bfm'it, that Court below commiitded a

 g1*v£1\}?e 2_&'.AI'I'O3' in 'tii's*1:'Iissi1'1g the app1ic:ati0r1 only on the

  order had been passed on I.A.N0.8 on

2A'1__4--ﬁ1 1--2C)O:i 'dud dismissing the application for recasting

 of t,h"c:.__i.?.9ss1.1e.$ and submits t:11at. said reascyraing" is to be

  wméld submit that: prop<.=:1'i:y which had

 .. ___'£;>ee11 leasecl by the plaintiff to deferldants was based on

'-F'



mis«rep1'esei'1i21i,ior1 Elfld i'acii.1-ally suit schedule p1'operi:y
':3e.i0i1,g§,s to State GOV-'€I'l'1H1CI"1i'I arici it is classified as
"Karab «KL11'1_i_e" arid it was notified for aequisiijitmi by

f3IQ)A for public pL1rp0se and to drive home 

clefendam: had raised a speciiiie plea in  3 ar:'d._ 

6 oi7i.he wriiii'e11 S[ai,<'3.I1'}€11ii 2-11"1ciI»inspiAt<}.+ uof "t:.11ere'b»e'i11.gea.

plea trial Court; (3()fI1fT1i'{.'C(;5d_aI1 C'_1'l;OI' in»"'i1o1j, freimii1g "e.

additioraal issues  s0ughi"=._i'()r_ anci'-thiis screks for

allowing of wrii: petit--ii$::--1 N:b.]3V-66?2/A2010 and prays for

setting aside the 0'1{de.uj._'CEa'l:.e79~_ 2i.?l2~4¥'?;0'1O whereunder

I_.A.N{_'i.'Xﬂ'   in support 0f his
SL1bH1i'E;Si0I1V1"i'E?V i'e}'ie:s.1__ij;;.Q:: the judgment. in the-. case of

Pratima  cifhers Vs. Shashi Kumar Narain

 A 'si1.%.{hcmndAothe}4sii1%¢:por1:ec1 in (2oo4)13 sec 599.

I0).._1?ei*""e0r3t';fe1 S1"i.K.ir'c1n Ron appearing for the

1:)1ei'i1'1ti--§€i'e"'¢{i'c>L1}c1 support'. the order passed by the trial

  "Co.1'_,.11*iiVVdai:ed 21~'i 12009 to the exi.e'r1t it has ailowed the

fseiid e1pp1iCai".ioi'1 in ;')art. a1"1'cI' by 1'eiierai.ii1g the

 I



lb

c0m;ent.ior1s mised in I.A.No.8._ he would submit that
trial Court e<>mmi€,t'ed an error in not a.Il0wing the
app1_.i<_%2~zt'io11  prayed for and prays for 2111()\vi_11g; bi'-.writ.

peﬁiiion 3637/2010 by al1dw_i11g I.A.N(};'8.:4'_"

co1e1£.em.i011s of the 1€'.8.l'1'1€d C.'.OLlI'lS€1 Sifi._Ki':<a11--.A_1'RQ113 '

smnnlarised as under:
{1} In a suit for €j€(5T,111f?}}T' (>41'T}jy2v"":;wo 
_required to be proved  H 
{£1} 1}1ere;::4_.exist--;§b.  Q'/:"'AAlee1d£ord
and tere1Ca'r:1_Vl:'  AA 2

(bi.-_r~':otic;:e of".E'er;'iIif'1:1_tion:«Q/' iencmcy is

 and received by the
_ V 

In S1,1pp(:).l'!"_V of t:h_isA'._be«.,~{v01.11d submit. that iSSLlEl'f}('.€', of

 mitigcé déi'ted..._.1«'1--2--2002 is admitted as same has

2  "   'pf0c:iL:--<:ed by the t'.eI1a1"1t himself in

.().»S'.'N<).'1'§€}_4e'7/2002 and it 11213 been marked  I:3x.P.35

 and i:.lv1"(e%';.rep1y '{heret.0 dated 23-2-2002 has been marked

 as"Ex.P.36 in the said s1,1it:.a11d as such both the

i?11g_1'edi_em's elm. adm_i1::t:ed by the defendant and hence

'P'



I.A.N0.8 had to be allowed and suit: had to be decreed

for p0ssess1'<)1'1.

(ii) He \2voulc1 s1:1_bmit' that under   _
21 party to the pl-0eeedi1"1gs has -c.1;(i1Ib1_itt:e(f; "
his pleadings either in tlaiis'    
proceedings it would be bi1i:d'i'11.g 1,1V;§o§{ the pa1ft1;  L'
under Order XII Rylle  is

stlfﬁeieni enough for '€ieereei_n}§§V  _

{iii} '1';.vi;:;:..Te.Vi;'cm;1--t. ;: h§t.ee.h';:§;mp1ied with the

p1*oVisior1é§ ()1'7°'Qi*.de1-.  ":'sir1ce allowing of the

21pp1i(:at.iQ11 ViVIiT,pa'V1'""z 9e2:_1 ir2Qt. he enforced and no decree
(1211) be draw11 érss S.'"u.b4--1'L1Ie_{2] of Rule 6 of O1*c'1er XII
()1',,C}§c)'de. of Ci"vi1._vP1*(')eed'ure.

,[v:iv]A would also submit that under See1.i()1'1 116

'of*Evide;i'e.e';'X(:'1 tenant 11avi1'1g accepted the t,e11a1'1cy at

the bE5g1'nhi1'1g, would not. be e1'1tit.}ed to deny the title to

xs'L1'<:.h immoveahie pmperfy ci1..:1"'ir'1g the eo11tin11ati_0n of

"f;h_e I,e11a:'1C.y a11d as SL1(.',1'1 prays for alkowing the

 n



hawk '

z1ppIi(7.:«Hi()z'1 I.A.N0.8 as s()ught for in the trial C-0111"?

prays (71 .

{V} He would s1,1bmit_ t:1'1ai: a1dn11t.t0ed 1:":-nit 

be p1'ove(i.   '

11. In su " ort: of the ab()x3s2 :f(0r*()sii'..i<)3~01_S' nda."cie,"*he
P .P_P'  ..

relies upon the foilewing J'i,i.§i;g;.:1V1e11i0s:  .
(i) AIR 2000 sc.274000(1§;»101
Uticun Siﬂgf ta    % Md. Vs. Union
Bartk of I 111d {(1. §1rid-- Qihérﬁj.    " 

rii10:14,20

 """   VPH.V'v1Dadr71avati1;;
V (ii_:i)"{1V 083 {R1 0;
M   Yashpai Dhir
A  :.0,{;p;fi;'10076j'V4000 134 (p.14)
" 0.  'S.r'Vii.':'-1120171 Pasricha V3. Jagarmath and Others
A  gap; «:"'}iIR 1 963 so 1 165 (12.12)

Banarsi Das Vs. K(m$i'1i Ram

W



(vi) (1974) 1 SCC 242 (R27)

Nagindas ramdas Efs. Dalpatram Ichharam

alias Brjjram

(vii) 2000 AIHC 1 990 (Delhi}{P.1 9).

I.T.I).C. Ltd. Vs. M / 3. C}'Ia!ICI'€F--I:3:C:ifVV 

Sons

(viii) AIR 1974 Madhyq Prddviésh 750129),'  00
Sliikfiarcharid aijidv o.ij}'1er2s'*   Bari
Baiand oijhz-%.rs  X 0   

12. On these gr--o~:.11f2fdS'--111i:_ :v,.f<$r allowing the

W.P.I§E($§'3'63.}?f/20:03) j'=by."-aliigiiiiag I.A.No.8  sought for
and  $1150  of W.P.No.2056/2010
filed  défiriavcia  .0  V

0   'I13 s(i)"fii.'1""£iS writ pet;ii;i()r1 W.P.No.1.6672/2010

  '0i'L'is2L"i~1;}1'»:%'cie'f:331.cia1z1t,s qt1e.stior1ing the order of mjecttion

<:>Ai"»..1.A. for 1*ecas1:ing of issue:-:3 he wouicl submit. that

 said '»Qi*de1* dot-gs not suifex' from any izzfirmities

'  whz3.Ais()t2ve1'. The triai court: has rightiy rejected the said

M



20

E':1ppIi('..';HiOl'1 in V-'iC\V of issue No.1 havi1'1g been answered
in favour of the pIaint',iffs whiie considering I.A.Nc§..8rand

as such c<_mside1'ingg the prayer of the cis:fs.191fc§.2_i1:t',tQ

1'e.<:asi' the issues wouid not arise ancl tI'1_LJ_S  the, 

order darned 24w4~2010 and  
Wm, pet-.:t.ion N0.16672/2OV1,O_.' M V
1.4. Havi1'1g heard the  a1dx<0r3aé':ééssppearirlg

'for both the pa1't.ies  iTi511(}yifir1:gV,Vp-mints  for my

consicleration: V

(1) »Vh§3%:.z?;¢;--(dr--. d1'dé'r"'v---vd»é1t.ed 21-11-2009

_'   part; {ﬂed under Order
: . XII  S(~:(r'[IO11 151 of the Code
.CVi'v.i_1aPrdrydédure on the basis of admissiorz

niéirdéd  the second defendant. in
s,Q.s.Nr$'."d1'«1o4/2001 is required to be
  4Vi,:.{):1"rﬁrmed or reversed'?
V' H OR

V Wheth<::1' the appiication 1.A.N0.8 filed under
Order XII Rule 6 read with Sect'1'0I1 151 is

required 110 be dismissed or to be allowed as

prayed 1-'pr'; 



(ii) Whei:}1er the appiicraiioxi filed 
deiiﬂideiiiiz imder Order XIV _
Code of Civii ProCedu1'e  T'
additional issues is 1v'-\i'3'(]'l.l'iI'(':(i'._"['()  6:'
dismissed and the 'ideited" 
dismissing i.he7sjc1id V"ap'p1i<;ai:si'()i1i.VA:is_f:i) 

c:01":firmed or 1'e>vsi"*snéC1f9

RE: POINT N0.""1:ﬁi-A _ 

. FAc'm.A1. _'i_;-:_i_s§._i':;{:j2{t:.-1'2:(is1iL;'iSrI>

15. }E?.1ai'f':.tii;:f..l<iVg1s fi}s_€i\«..gii'i'-éigiiﬁ-_p1ication I.A.N0.8 under
Ordel'  of Civil Procedure
c()meri'<ii1'ig '   has admitted in

O.S.No. /*2OVO__1 f.}1;e1't..."}§1ai11tii}* is the abscilute owner of

 i.11f.,'l:'53.'=LlEi{,V. sQhe%dﬁi1€v------;3:*0perty and defendants are lessees

"1fe1'1i of Rs.21_,OOO/-- under piaiiitiff. In

xrisxvx? of _t.h'ci._sé1.n1€ it would bﬁ'. r1ec:essa1"y to ext,r3.(:i. and

',_exami1ie":. i:he admissions made by Défﬁlldaflt is

":ijV'_C3,.:bS".}'§F<3.1 104/2001 {Armexure L in W.P.No.3637/201:0}

  V' w?}"1;ic:h 1'ea.ds as undezr : 



,7 ,3

4. "That plainttﬂ' has taken lease of. 
land in St;.No.4I of (}'eddalahaZlt  
Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North' 

bangatore, a,pproxtmat'eIy to,..t}1_e extent 

Sq.feet' of Iand _ji*on1 Srt.B.T 

Lease Deed dated >131-1 9'QOAt"or1 a,..".;:to?1if1It;f 
rental o_fRs.9000/-- eat=Ite~:e>ar1d tater:
and is Rs.2I,O_O0/~  "=~.,Ti1at"'ag:r.art'§ the
Platr'1tt[;"Ie1as paidfV:d';'1_ug1e  to its
landlord. The  :»c:o'i'"r:1A,t§a:i:'1_Vt,.:'--V"is pa_t;tng
r7'to:'tt.l'1tg, «ren_~ts t'§5A_1ron{_:j.!t1e  Dena bank
   and Citibank.
£3aI'tga1oi5te.1'h.;_:   bank accounts of
(,fVttthVa:'1't:5*V:sI'tot,tttr:g.'i:tj'to:1_thly rentals is produced.
aIon£g._z.ottlt  Docan'1entNo.HI. In this

ctorttesthit,  rrele.oan'th' to note that on the request

4; o"}'7t;i'to:e ta'ndtofd, Mr.B.T.V_tjay, the said monthly

 ;-eta:-:3 hora'; split into three persons name i.e..

  "artd his wt/e Lakshmi Vtjay and

h' VSJ1Vci.nt"§*t£a'.'daughter of B.V_tjag. are receiving

 Rs_;--..'Ot30/ ~ each. That' the Lease Agreement

has 1' been. given to the bank for the purpose of

V'  "g~;eeLtrtng loan _}'or the business. There is no

int'erse cttspttte between the plaintiff and their

Q1



Eu
W

landlord l3.T.Vijai; in respeei. of the schedule

premises. "

7. "Thai the owner of the 
properly Mr'. B.T.Vijay, iS_l'Il1G_ grciiiiee::Q,':l'll1.eA.V 
land and ajier the expiry o}=::t'l1e-gijarléi,oef'iool;"he: :, AA
has acquired abSOlLl.l€_ title lo. the if; 
question. Thai the Vijay is

to lease the schedule piiorleriy:3(LA

8. "Thai ihe oioi'Iiero_j"ll'ifl?ie property
Mr'. £3.T.'i/Hiitsibi,   land and
after.    he has
 thellarid in question.
Thai   f§.'1'»".}'i,ia;i,'l_'lViI<§Vleompeienl to lease

the sef1edille" p?'o'oe::ly. .'_'

_I_(:3. P14'3¢'{.i1ji.ii'lT ..'11z£'s  produced the depositiorl of

' ''*-I,}'1€é~.__s§C(i:_011ci* ..def"c11Cféii1I; who has tellderred evidence: of

 ._P'.'\2$_.r_'1e~   V'v...V:o.s.N<.). 1 104/2001 (Annexu1'e»»M in

W.AP,_l\l()._3€:§3fF/2010) whereilncier defendant: No.2 is said

 l1e1ve.ai'dn1itt.€d that plaintiff is the owner of the suit

..WaCl'iedi1Ie properrty and defendants are lessees on a

..mont}1ly rem: of Rs.21,00()/-- which according to the

4%'



piaitltitf is a Clear admission. The said .::1.cimisSions
made by the second defendant, O.S.N0.1.1.O4§/2001 is

€Xt}'a("ii€d h€I'E'.iT1 below:

Para No.3:"That the ptainttjjttas  _

Q/' the land in Sy.No.4I Qj" Geddat(xh.€t:t:tt..  ht  

Kasaba Hobti. bangalore 1£3'Ctr'1.tja(o.rfe';:;_at

approxt.z'nat.ety to the (3XvIE}.I_'tf"-Qf; Q1  VSQ2; [
from Srt'.B.T.Vtjay uI'tdetf:'t;e_ase Deea:1t_'_c._tat_Véd 1+
1990 on a r71ont'-h't'g_retttat W earlier

and later enttatleedarid is._I?,s.2v£ .000/~ now. That

agjafr   t  huge security deposit
tgvgjt »t'tc:ttt1tt'['/'s company is paying
:njtor1t'lt£§;[r'e?1'1t'sAAiht;bttgit its banker Dena Bank,
.:Na_gtczshetththattt'AAV Bangatcizre and Citibank.
 The st'at'ernent of bank accounts of
 showing monthly rentals is produced

ancli' the same may be marked as Exhibit. That on

V " «. title request of the landlord, Mr.B.T.Vy'ay, the said

mortﬂtty rents was split into three persons name

@/



i.e., t';3.7'.V;'jCl_I;} and his wtje Lakshmi \/tjay _.._(_3tI1d

Shantata a'.at.ighter of B.T.V_ijay, are 

Rs. 7000/ M each. "

Para No.6:"The right,:~tt'tfte--,-.arii;t 
the landlord in respect' t)_'f__ V 0 I V 0.
question have not  
owner Q/' the  is
the grantee Qf tt'1e0tVaiict--'   expiry of
the   tibsolute title
to the   the said B.T.V_ijay

1}; éét7'ipeet'er'it"té' ledge the __§e7'iedit,te property."

0'  tight. titte, and interest Qf

_-the lhhtineiloret  respect "Qj" the property in

'4}"~q;t!,(:?SZ._iOI'I ha'z;«e"'r1ot been c1_f]'c»2(rtect. That the

  o.I,._t.iriz:ér:_tjf'._t,tr1.e schedule property Mr.B.T.V_tjay, is

 Qfthe land and cifter the expiry of

 t.l'ie'gréit1t period, he has acquired absolute title

to the land in question. That the said B.T.V_'zjay

0' I  competent to lease the schedule property."

@/

'L-he prope'rty. i.r:tV. 0



'3 6

PROVISIONS OF LAW:

17, It wouici be 11ecessa1'y to extract: the reievant

provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and E3\ii_d'e:1ee

Act: which have Ioeen pressed into service fb1"_;¥G1a--s'id_eré:1g.

and a11aIys1'11g; the rivai <:<)m'.em'.io11s   me» 2

palﬁes:
Order XII Ruie':Ei'«QfCf5C'V' V _ 
I. Notice of adrftiesion tray'-'. eu.§e.M;':§Ar1;J
party (''0 a_'sttta'.t'rf1(1»_t,i'r1otiee;;by his
pleadirtﬁ, 'A qr   'writing, that
he _ acimtts» .  " terfutttv  whole or
      qf any other
 X.I~e;fx,v
  Xxx '

Qfudgment on Admissionsﬁ (1)

.« _t;r,"A< A.

1: Where admissions Qf fact have been
made either in the pleading or
otherwise, whether orally or in writing,
the Court may at any stage Qf the suit,

either on the appI.icatz'.on Qf any party

Q,



or of its own motion and l.L!iU"iQ_l_t(I'
waii"iI1g_]"0r' the determination 
other question between the _  
rnake such order or git}e._: 
_ju.dgment' as it r7'tay'»t:'t1irz.kj' 

regard to such c1dr'§1iss.,iba'2;§. '

{2}  a  
pronounced t.t:t'::IuC'z'£';f'  I a

decree' i_4_"'::!1a{_t 3. v.cir"ctz,ur'1 up in
accordance.'  :it'~f'v"Le_.h~};f~.'fIbb1_e.r1tc and the

_ Liec.zfee  dcite on which

._    tt!as§'pfoi'ictinced.

  deﬁned._ An
cicinrcticissiolwt   jtorai or documentary
or c0:1taiVr'ie"cl. in_ete:c'tronicj'brm]. which suggests

; (1:'1Iy ir'gere_r_'ice as to any fact in issue or relevant'

 - A V"  bald which is made by any of the persons,

  . tinder' the circttmstartces, hereiriafter

" 7 met 1t'ior"}3ed.

 Facts admitted need not be

provedw No fact need be proved in any

A proceeding whicfi the pa:_'_tt_es thereto or their

agents agree to admit at Effie hearing, or which,

Cg/,



3 'J

1:119 <*iiaiio1'1s leiied upon by the learned adv0Cai;€S.._WhiCh
would {hr(:>w light: on the faeiis in issue and 'eigfcé

ai'1z1lysed in sL1ceee<:1i1'1gg pa1'ag1'aphs.

(i) AIR 1967 SC 341

Basant Singh Vs. Janki sir-{gh  

5. The High Coiiiflalso  "an
admission in a _{)leadiijia':carigloe  for
the purpose of  snii ii:1l'ii.2i1ie'liihe pleading
was filed. The obseijvaiioiis.-oi"i3ea'uinor1t', C.J.

in R aI71bc;i,i l SI'u'irfi SGO Uernmenl, AIR lend somemeountenance 10 this 1 --.,.oie1§'L}.h iobseruations were eaqolaiiled by the Bombay l-'Iigi'i:_Coi,zi9i:..'i'1sI1:l3.S';'~-Méoliiie vs. S}. Mohile, AIR J96"O.._ l3orn admission by a party in a 4; ' piairii and verified by him in a prior suit is"1:i.i"i" within ihe meaning ofS.J 7 of Evidence Act, 1872, and may be ;3foue;:_iV..i1agaii'isi him in other liigigaiions. The 1r"1t'E;£.T].i'l."COl,£i'l. also relied on the English law of evideriee. In Phipson on Evidence, JO?" Edn., :fAr*1. 74.1, the English. Law is rims simimarised:

e/ "Pleadings. atiihoiigh admissibie in_..__ other actions, to show the institution the suit and the nature" of the case"'piii'_' ' jorioard are regarded merely Nels in suggestion of eou:'1sevl;""'c/znd A recreioabie against a party c1seadr7ii;ssiohs',VV unless sworn. signed, oi'f':.efi.t;3iseVVV adopted by the parigiéshirriseljli'Thiisf eoieret under the Engﬂish iait-;: st.a_i.en1ent"'i1'ia. pleading sii2o--."n,« . ax' i otherwise adopted by agpefty is gid:nfssihZe".agaiz1st him ari:tio:ns;' Matiartski us.

Cai'i'r'is--;. 2; V the House of i..o_:fdé»'_ ideeidectgi 't'I1at"'an-"admission is a pieadVi:':g'V.signedggby a "party was evidence 'against.-l1in:i'-in"anoi'her suit not only with toh.'-aA"difj;fere11t stilqject-matter but __faEs_o agai..r:I..st a dif/"erent opponent. _v Moreeoer. we are not concerned urith the 1 'V~iteifhnicroiliiies of the English law. Section the Indian Evidence Act, 187.2 ~ malces no dist'in<:tion between an admission made by oi party in a pleading and other admissions. Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a l plaini signed. and verified by him rriay used as evidence against him in oiihéerﬁéi'-9.

suiis. In other suits, this a.drr1issio.r1g._._j: 5 _;. CarmoI:' be regarded as conC.lLisiue,_ L"

is open. io ihe party io s~ii'o'u-:-.iha_i' it, true. V V b i ii

(ii) 1 992 (3) KLJ 685a?' R. Diiip Kumar Vs,' Raruii" a.*=1oii1ei"'

5. The lea.rh$ed' eoriihseh appellant"

further argued re's;3-r§nder1i'Vhinisei/' had ﬂied C41,§:2r'edious-..si.iii:.ai Q--.VS.No.h1'3;4 of1988 and in --ipig:iir'1i" 'i1.e"'~':,'i'1as"'i"admitted that these p'ro,oeri:ies 'i.he;;',oir1tj'arhiVly properties.

" :6; vs. Janki Singh, AIR 1967'Siipre:-fie'.Couri' 341, ii: has been held as

- .

Act (18712), Sections 21,17 and by pariy in -piaini signed and ue.rg'.]'ied by him_Admission may be used as eo.ide:"1c:te against'. him in other suiis_Such "gadm_issiori cannot, however, be regarded as conclusive and party can show it as not true:

AIR 1960 Bombay 153 [explaining AIR 1941 W _)J 3K) Bombay 144). Approved: A.F.O.D.Nos. 30 and 40 of 1953. DD: 31-7-1959 (pat) reversedf

7. The learned counsel for M feliect on Nagindas Ramdas vs,-"DaE;fJ;at"}'c1:"ri.

Iceharama Alias Erijrani and it Siipreme Court 471. _Ir_1 tl'1ai;.Arii.ling aI.;~:o:." It is held asfol£ows:- 1 . _ p "Admissions, if "a_n'd_. deaf,' far the best ﬂp}ioq1'h'.g/'~;,£r;v}Att"st ._admitted.

Admissions in ' ._ judiciai admi:;éions, adr;1i.ei€i.ble"iii.;rr1.d'eif'$ection 58 of'iii£:i__tjt%~:}i{€t1Q§.,__AC€:, by the parties __ or thei;~¥'V.;;tgen't's 0.": the hearing of the "CjL_z$eV_..'o1':' a higher jooting than ix}euidentiatg._iaL?_:n1i$sior1. The former class of-.advntis-sions'a..are fully binding on the V <pa:'iy' 'that' rnakes them and constituted fitnaiiger ofproojl }*;e;V;._jli:iJ+ themselves can be made the '].b'i:.i_F"1L;i;C{i'iOt'l of the rights of the parties. On other hand, euidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial of eUid€IICT€4 are by themselves, not 3 3 Conclusive. They can be shown to be wro:'1g. "

-T his ruling is consistent with the earli'er ruling of the Supreme Court. It cannot be said to laying down any rule contrary to 1it1eH.earl'iefrt ruling of the Supreme Court quoted ' Accorcling to this I'LilfI1g__."VCilSO, _f'ev'Edle:1li:'iar'yV admissions which ir'1eldc_le made by a party in the pleadirigs in suit are receivabie at i_h;é~._ti'iai.l"ds by themselves they <:L_IT£El'll'not;_conciusVioe:_They cannot be stio1._i§n_ to "~-.w.ro'ng. Therefore, merely on the ctdrn-t_s3i_k9ns alleged to haoeheen r§nade_:'V.:bg.4VAtheV._respondent in his of 1988, it cannot be sai'd stands proved because A _ the .."adr';'_'iissior1 by itself will not be Ee:onclusioe«a_r1di the respondent will be at liberty under what circumstances he has ";n'c:.dei.ai'i.d even to show that it is wrong. ll"'{iii}:.5..'(}1'll0 AIR sow 2937 Jeevan Diesels and Eleclricals Ltd. Vs. M / s. H Jasbir Singh Chandha {HUFJ and another. Q/' J3. Whether or not there is a __._clear, unambiguous admission by one party of the of the other party is essentially a questriorz;o,f7_jbic_i:

the decision of this question depends o':<:_;therj'clici:s of V' < the Case. This question. r'td:"rie'»l-yr'wheiheir'-.ihtere]isVl'a clear admission or not cd'r1r1o't'rb'e decfidledl a:--e_"iz<:;e basis of C1. _;'udicial.' precedent. T7r1erre,"0;'e, geuen'. though the pr'in.ciples iri"i'ul§ct:'ar1rt Kr;:pl"l'ii3{s'i'1prcU may be unexoeptionable they 'A:lf_:Ci.r'1ho.t" be tippitied in the irisiani case in ' irieio 5 _ di[feren.t fact-

situation. .

lip} " 5198 mil sci: 4241i __ H _estoppel embodied under V llSl°ec?li:'iori l:.")';f:lil"1év1'EllECl€?J'1C'€ Act is that, a ienant ii:hoi«-has been, lei,-tlli1'1io possession cannot' deny his £.andiord's title, however defective it. may be, lo_i1g_as he has not openly restored possession 1 :§uvr;'e.:1der to his landlord. During the cor1ii,¥*'i:nir'tce of the tenancy. the tenant cannot .d"c.g:,1'ire by prescription a permanent J"ig'hl' of oCeiipar'1c:y in derogat ion of the landlord's title by mere assertion of such (1 right. to the knowledge of the landlord. See: Biltits Kimwar us. Desrcy'

2.) 'J1 Ranjit Singh and Atyam Veerraju vs. .Pec_h.et'ti Venkanna. The general rate is however §;ti?9',iectt to certain exceptions. Thus a tenai_;'t'""isg._;ho:i_.

precrhtded'jroin denying the derivativ_e""tiVtieQ}; persons Claiming throu,gh""'t:i1e lt_',J'.I1,Ct7_I'.():A'I'tVZlI..' See: Kurnar Krishna Prosad _:LCtl1'_'_'Singha" he Baraboni Coat Co:1cerr:i Liinitehd. VSi;rnita.r.i_t;V,VH theyh estoppel tinder Sec7tiior1'v"i'r»J:.}'i6 of the Evvideniee Act is restricted to" . the iizeim#:itzj the htit'ie'"Vat the ,::ommencement hi]; I it _ . hF'.r.'o m" this, the weep tion. f()UO11:Jfi'." tihat '-it its it to the tenant even iiivithoitt s:i.irre_i'iderir1;e}"loossession to Show tI1ati'_§bi:iee_»V the tenancy, the title of the land.I,o'n".l cra-the ta» an e'r"1'd~~-or that he was evicted {bi} -a' pararnoi;rtit"~tti:tie holder or that even though there was. 1'10" aCt.i_iai ei'Jiit'?iio:'i or dispossession .from p.roperty: under a threat of eviction he .__at'torn'ed-----«to the pararnount iitte--holder. In ora'.e'r.t_t"c;V eonstit.i.ti:e eviction by title paramount, it established by decisions in England a.nd_in.A India, that it is not necessary that the "tenant should be dispossessed or even that A there should be a suit in ejeetrnent against him. A It will be sii]_ficient' if there was threat o]'eviet"ion and if the tenant as a "re-stilt of such threat 4% attorns to the real. owner. he can set up such eviction by wag Q/'defence either to an c:tet"'r'.ogr1'-_.[o-'f_ rent or to a suit in ejeetrnent. If tfi-73"'--te;i1_(;tiit§__42 however gives up possession votitr1t"ar-ity~to. the' titlewhotder. he- cannot claim" the b_ei1ef"i'tfQ]"this rule. When the ter'iaricg I"ta;s been'detern1i'Ie2.ed."it3g'iiA eviction by titte pGt'(1U1OLlI1't,.V_ "no qitestiori got"

estoppet arises iiiider»_T13ec?t'ioi*t~.. It-5 the Evidence Act, Adtj'Cit"tC£:U1 Ghatatc' vs; Krishna Prasad Singh. Tits' gpr'i--:'ieip}Te 'equally apply when the.teriantvhasfatt'orneet' a threat of eviction" title:pora'rtio'iii't:...ctr1d there Comes into , relationship of as---betvtveeri them, The tau:

st.'at'ea'i;:~..§r'o?:.2'Z?:Hr1isut;=urg's Laws of England, t,,.,zifZ._3'8;_Evtt:~t'ioii under title paramount. In Lorjtiei' 'CQIISHILLIG an eviction. by a person , '<:tctir7~-:.iZng under title paraniount. it is not it "v4:'i'~:ecc5.ss'tti'i; that the tenant should be put of possession. or that proceedings "":Shoutd be brought. A threat of eviction. is si.;[fic:ieni., and if the tenant, in consequence of the mt-'eaz.. attorns to the Claimant. he may set this up as an eviction ¢/_ by way of defence to an action for rent..__ subject. to his proving the evietor's There i.s no eviction, however, if the _i;e'1'ic..iru2t._;' 5 ;_. ' gives up possession voiiiniarilg.

Quite recent.l_y, this COLtI'€:':_'A' Sardar Menaraban Singh, 'to "whichg,'o_r1ev" of V

-was a part'g, observed: p.327; S The estoppel coz1i'er71plcited_ 'by Seeiion _3§J6 is restricted to _ .tit'le at the commencement and by i:'1'iplz'.ca:i'io'n; "_'i.i folloivs to tenant is not estopped.__ji¥.o.1j1"eon_tet1dtng'_' that the title of the lesso rw" nd.

gsee I-:fv;'s.sair1_' vs. Fazal Hiissain, K.S.M. N.G. Ranganatharg S.A.A. Ariniaznatriit C_fiettia.t5 vs, Molayian and Chidambara Vinagagar.Devasthanam vs. Duraistvamg."

A "iv)"AIRit2:c:)oo so 2740 .S;:'ngh Dugai and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank ()_;'5.TV:II.I(;"li;:Ci and 0i.h.ers. it A' 11. Learned Counsel for the appeal " 'i;()OI1f€I'ld€d that Order XII, Rate 6 comes under H the heading 'admissions' and a judgment on admission. could be given only after the $2.

opportunity to the other side to explain the admission, if any. made: that. such admission should have been made only in the course o/'the pleadings or else the other side will not haoe._;an_ opportunity to explain such admission, though, the provision reads that the it at any stage of the suit malcesiiel'1 order lasljit thinks fit effect of adrnis»sior_i,~ bani-=, l"Canlf=..beA:iVi_* considered only at the tirnethlq-f' trieilf admission even in pleadeilngs LU.t'll'- along iuith Order VII];--Rl.iil.e"--~5(l} of=C_2PC§ and Court need.not"<-i'i}i-ces§_sa2rjiij;"proeeed to pass an order or V a 'jLtClnQ]v_illk?.i1t.'.l__lO€fl of such ad.n'iisg:.r.{o':1_ hut. eall 3..ipo'n relying upon lzsiieh act'}'nis_Vs'ion'prove its ease independently. 'th;ct_t" €iiti~iz1Q of other suits and the . nature Vo}"~eo'.r1tentions raised in the case, it would not pelrnivis.sible at all to grant the relief bejore _t'riaiuas. has been done in the present case: that 'i'l1:e._exp're'ssion 'admissions' made in the course oftl'"ielplecidir1gs or othertiuise will have to be ~ read. together and the expression 'otherwise' will have to be interpreted ejusdem generies.

12. As to the object of the Order XH Rule 6, we need. not say anything more than what the @/.

40 pleadings or ot'herwz'se. When a statement is made to a party and such statement is before the Court ShOl.Uil'1g admission of7"'l--écttl;ililttgf by an application filed under Order Xll and the other side has st/g,f}':wient' c{pportttr1i.tlyv-f'Q explain the said adrnistsio;-it ~'an'd_ stic.hV°T.A explanation is not ac(>ep_t'ed by_ the C:::t'z'2't; toe do h not think the trial Coar't""it3:."helpless._ihrefE,t_siI1g to pass a decree. We i1at!e"at_lpei'tc3d tothe basis of the claim and the trail Court. has,_dealt the 'Vs'a'.n'1ei;"'.E«V'§/'l*i.eI2 the trial Judge that made in the " Directors meeting and- as the pleadings ii-often __leads to unarnbtgaous and ctlearéadrrttsstoii to-ét'li"oi1ly the extent to which the V.adr'71isE:ionvts-- rnadiel is in dispute. And the Court '°¥.i'tad __a dLt"tig....to«'decride the same and grant a 2 decree."-. __ We think this approach. is sAttrierreeptio'naI:>le.

(ui)AV1"9x99(7) sec 474 A. S:'Thangappan Vs. P. Padmavathy

14. This Section puts an embargo on a tenant of an immovable property, during the CV continuance of his tenancy to deny the tiileof his landlord at the beginning of hi.s l€IT.1j,i'v.1(_:3';i_-,'f_7"'-._ The SiQI'lUlCTC.tI1l' words under it are 5 ;__ ' beginning of the tenancy". This is indteat'iv:}e'.o/' T the sphere of the operatior'2-Ioj' this sl_:ec_tion~.v So 'ail tenant once inducted as a teiiaiit ~.by ctlandloi'a:;--.'hf.A later h.e cannot deny.»hi.s iai'idIoi*d's t't't'lle;V; this principle of es t'oppe'i .,l:(°iC>barsl R31 _ tenari frorn denying the ivittsgu Q/"A..i'ii'is lflr1lnd._lordl;]'t'on'tl the beginning of his' de_[ectti,:e the title qt SLich.~--landlordgcottldy:"(sic may) be. such .c'a:ino'i " title. But ht" ,}'i'isff§ tenant if the t,a:=idt§rdl" lill'é'~~«i;l.I1Cl£?I' any law or_ a_grc5en1entfai'td_ylti1eie. -a threat to such tenant of .__his_ subsequently acquired V.par'an'iottn.t..t'itle=hoid.ei' then any denial of title Sttch Atlenant' to the landlord who inducted 2 hvin=2%inMto. the tenancy will not be covered by this .pt'ii'tciplef"l2l" estoppel. under this section. In _l \Mai'igj(itRctIicirii this Court held: {SCC p.327. pctfia I 1.) "Tile estoppel contemplated by Section 1.16 is restricted to the denial of title. at W the commencernent of the tenancy and by implication z'.tjol.lou.=s that a tenant is not estopped from contending that the title of_..__ the lessor had since come to an end,"

(vii) 1976 (4) SCC 184 Sn'. Ram. Pasrtcha Vs. Jag('fu1r'1ath and '-2

14. There are two I_'_(3.{1.S_(_)I1S_'f(§t'l"O.1;!'.Vi"!Ol'.

being able to accept the=__abo1{e é;ttb.nttsSto'n5 Ftr'st:l.y, the plea pertains tol'tiheV.dontaTtnthe ﬂame Of the suit "suit nonfotnder of ot"her Aplatz1.tg}tfg, Su'ch._a_x§ plea should have beern:"t'at$fed.'foi=f;;r)habt' it is worth, :alt.lmlti'1e.:5earl'teS!"loioportulntty. It was not done. :._""§€CO.I'lCl.7't4_j;' .t't'l'1e=relation between the parties betfngtltltat £»artellord and tenant, only the l"lC_1Al'1CllOl'(il__ lcould' terminate the tenancy and ' institute ttl1eV'"Sutt_for' eutct'ton. The tenant in such _ .estopped'_]i'om questioning the title of ' .t.l'1'el--'V.ljartdlord under Section 1 16 of the Evidence he tenant cannot deny that the landlord had tttlelto the premises at the commencement of the tenanc_t;. Under the general law. in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the teased property is irrelevant'. It" is, 4?' 43 therefore, inconceivable to throw out the suit on accoiuii" of nonmpleading of other CO'OlUIl6'l_fS_lCiS"'-, sue] i.

(viii}A.IR 1963 so 1165 _ Banarsi Das Vs. Ka.l1SlllRC_é]T1

12. In the plainill.ih~.,:'l1e p'resehi"

plaintiff Kuridan Lal lfhai the 13(1I'lf'l€FSl'll;é ' ~.ﬂii;I'l\l ii slood dissolved on :1 .n_':u§i_:_en Sheo Prasad'/?ie'd.._Sui_lAVVlVo'. the court of the _:I,a_.l"loj;'ei ll doubt, as poi:'1led.-ioui. Banarsi Dds i;"ias" _"iIjiis in his written s"!.'a1ei'71e.n_i:'ai.~.hol_ih.ah three places. The adIhfssion_f l1oi.LJe1)er. would bind him only in ; 'sofar asfacis are concerned but not in so far czisvii 'relates iglollla queslion oflau). ' (ixji"s1i9;9é (4) scc 683 RN. Gosairi Vs. Yashpal Dhir

10. Law does not permit' a person to both '.""_«approbaie and reprobaie. T his principle is based on the cloctrine of election which posiiulales that. no party can accept and reject ¢§/ 44 the same iristnmierit and that "a person canr_1.o_t say at one time that a transaction is valid thereby obtain some advantage. to 1.i._>h'it','h.j~t1.e could only be entitled on t'hefoot:thg_ 'that valid. and then turn roi.md-arid'~say'_it' is _ooid,jo-.'5} the purpose o_}"'seeuring some otfhelr aduiarlliagelix. :7.' (See: V£;'I'S(i,'hi.tI'€S Cr'e:,irr1_eries"Ltiit os;'v:I%ti.itl._,ar1d Netherlands Steamship" Ltd. V }:'3'<:riiiVto L.J.) According to _t-iaisburgfsl of ErigICir'td, 4:2; Edn., Vol.16, tal\*i_rig::vari'agdzdlahtage under an order {for exampI¢'.,/b'r._tijiel of costs} a pa:'tg_" that it is irwail arid" it'as'ide". I para 1508.)

ix) 1 e'7e;st1t{1l)ilA¥scc'V242 1 Nagtndas _ " ~ « Dalpatram Ichharam (1lI'(1S":.I.i3I'_llj'?'VClI'I.fl, 27'."rontia conspectus of the cases cited the principle that emerges is, that if Vt;i.ti_ie of the passing of the decree, there l,t.!(1§§'"l$fOl$Ine material before the Court, on the pasts of whicrt'i, the Court could be primafacie satisfied. about the existence of a statutory grour1d_for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for

-15 eviction though apparently passed on the basis' ofa eornprontise. would be valid. Such m,a_4t.e.r_ta,_'ll'-..

may take the shape either ofevidence rfrgéoorfded 5 ~ or produced in the case, or, it may j3ar'tl:y» or wholly be in the shape o]'an"e:vpresos or jitnplied} admission made in the cori':_Drafnése agr"ee'men't';~~..ll":TA itsel/'. Admissions, 'ij'.t.rt.-:.e artdnelear, the best proof _jaet:s_ Admissions in pleadtrtgsllorjjiadttrial adrnisslions, admissible under ' it the E vtdence Act. rnadeaby the ",:;>a:1'*ties_'o_r it their' lxaglertts at or before 2_'il4"te;.t.hearingA stand on a ltigiier . g:vtdctnt.tary admissions.

l ""c;d'inissior1s are fully :l[)_l'I'1C.lL'1'l_Qll that makes them and con.stz't,Llte*. of" proof. They by .themselves.Can:be made thefoitndation of the 'r'ig:Vl1t.s o/'A""tlte«-«'parties. On the other hand. _ evtcle«::it"ia._;y admissions which are receivable at .the'~trial'~as evidence. are by themselves, not (_TC_!F'1'{"_lvl'l;i">'Al.L?(,'. "they can be shown to be wrong. (xi; 1 999 AIHC 1 990 13113.0. Ltd. Vs. M/s. C3ha:'1der Pal Sood and Sons Ck* 47

(xii) AIR 1974 MADHYA PRADESH 75 Shikharchand and others Vs. Mst. Bari 9' others

9. T he next conier19jior1i"oj'._ thee' Zea:*i1ed"' eounseljor the appellants ihai CCUUIOL succeed on. a'ease r1oi'~pleadeCiAEéy~hin--i and that' the adrI1issior1si'\}'<oj' basihg' ajiidgymeni under Order "RLiIef"io_:Ar'riii:;iV"'relate vioifacis stated in the plaihi in Section .17 of t'}4.r;>" Evic{e}'iee.?/Xei*\.,..:{vo.(1 vVacjlV'rfiz1.s.sior'1 is a S{'Cl{€.T'I1g;j_r"LI suggest any irgleiéfehceiies._io~:ar1g.jj}:ocf;iri issue or relevant .;'V(:iei.' 'Fziflriri iai':;a'i:age"VVofiOrder 12 Rule 6 Q/' the it is clear that ii is open to ii':-._e.'2 io base a judgment on ;'ad_n1ission;'o'h the pleadings or otherwise. The iiJ'ord* .f'oth.erii§i'se" in {he said Provision clearly _ that' it is open to the Court to base the '-..ghjaoi{A,iVI:1eie:1i' on siaiements made by a party not either expressly or Consiructiveiy.

o:..*il'ij= in the Pieading, but aiso de hors the pleadings. Such. admissions may be made W 48 REASONING ON FACTS

19. 'l"l'1<;? Cr_.)n:c1'1fi()1'1 of S1"§.Nz:1§,_{a1*z11jz:1 the effc-*.c:t 1"he.1IT the word "pleadings" 1~c1:t'c>'1jV1f_p:'(',!\,:i"<'; XII Rule 6 is to be u1'1de:*st;c)0(5§ 'fL) :}j'g presem: suit. The said »C?()_11tc1:1 '{iA<.)"f;w..\xro1,%§€i--i cor1so1'1anc(-3 with the object '¢i'1'1u<:'i'»i1j1i;e11i:n1é'm' c)I""{')1*c_1c4:1* XII Rule 6 inasmuch v;§fc':;icIi1'ig as" c'1c.'{'i'1'"1r:cI uncglcr ()1"c:le-r VI would mean and i1"1L'.AIH1_1V_(:it;._ '(.)vIv;V'é55L':§'--i{L'fI€?1'} sI21i"e:11e1'}1. and 0b_;'e(:'{' to a: Iirie1.l by sec:1.:ring' in _d§Sp{lI',€' so as to .'£)4iLV€'3(fi5(3 iSS1.1CS and \»'.2-11':'()1.:s Rules p1'es<:rib<-;~>. the Forrn, mode,' -p_arE:iCu.i§1i's"t0 be given, verificratiion to be done '2.1.1'1Vd"" r70i:?$<:>CV1'1';:(;:11c:es of 1'1on~Compiiance. 111 Ijhcr i:'1sia1'11':

'etas:(cj: 1jI'1<~tfp1veaVtivi.x'igs wliich has been relic-ad upon by the 1:)12:Li'i*1--.t.if'fs°tisﬁkplalirlt in O.S.Nu. 1.104/2001. T110 £'av1: of ' fil..i1'j1g <:)f"t.l'1@ said suit. ctcantems 1'ht3l"C of'; e;1:1("l a.'{}"ix:'ng of _'-_S'§g111'aif'L11'e in the said plaini; is not dispu'(c.=d by the l 49 c1:=%fe.1'1dzé1m"s. On the «;)1'hc":r hamd (:Ec'fe:1(;I2:1.:'1i' «;'*.<')11i:cr1'}(.iss in tzhcir <.)b_ject.ion to the 2.1ppiica1io:'1 in ques:i<)11 as I};;1Vh§..:_A;'\l~h.>.\_;s:

" II is subrmﬂed t':i'1c1i" assur'n1'rzg i.i'?--'E1:}..'z7*2é-?:'*é3__'' -5 is an a<;in'u'ssion on the par!' of flu? _CI,.t3[&:--;'2(i.c1j'1is as claimed by the pZair1£_i[f§ [it»AAiS"aEr,au¢1g,:s.: '.Ib:--=7 the p£ain£,_[[]' to rely on I'f1é. s€.v._rﬁé ix"? _c5:'c.i_ca:j succeed in the suit"

20. If: is 2:1}:-:0 v21d_;nitt'£:('i" 'f.i*1_§::2 cl'e.:f'Lir:_':~e".:/;.:.:V:§t in the 0b_j(3c:tii()1'1s filed to ".__qu<;'.sE.io1'z £'hat Tin" (;)l)je('.€ of Rule 6 t;ha1't': it e-.*r1a:1.bEt:'.S a pIai1";1?ifi' to judgment at:1east to the ezxtent 'ofihe "a"e1"i":if on the €1dfI1iSSi()!1 of the def;<:-ghdalit. the party making such ac'11'11issim'1 is . z;-1'.;),1e 1.:_c3 d.c11§011s1'.1'z1t«e tthat there was no suc1'1 a('in1i.ssi(.>1"1 'of --i_1i1t.€§:'11r}1_*;:,._ﬁEﬁéxpiaill away the said 21c1n1issi<_>1z it would ., ixr1~i-gAg1éV"0L1t', of .f1*0m the :"ig0L1r of Rule 6 of C)1'(ic':1' Xii. moi"b€*}:)<)S§ésiI31e for i.E"1c? 1:)e11'i.y 1'1'1a.kz'1"!Q $uc}'z a.1(1missi('n'1 {.0 W

21. In flint i1"1st:e:1m vase ac'in1i1t'e.c'1}y aldﬁlliss-.siL1):'1 is lT1£:1(f1(i? by the dci'e11('!2.1m. in 2.1 .s3uiI:: film'! E.'3y l'zi::_:;{;'c.r".§~..i11 O.S.No.1104/2001 and as such it has to admission made in the course ;)IT...})1ead_i'1iQ;$" =:§1}f:; l'jé.1"i_'ciVi11-5;; A' and 21 licable to mascm 1~()g:e"e~.cii1'1i">':~s'xalicl 'H1 i1221.?.+ i1'c.;> 1 p , 5 _ , _ % construed as am e1<'1missi0:i2_'u1'1cic:f" OIcl_e;'~. X.I._I""EQ.1..:%:c: 6." This Court. is of the xﬁgw 1f.1V1«':~'.--'.3'u:'.c'1A'Ci.Ii'i~§.,If§.Si($£'1"'ii'?!._A2.1_.&(')11H,1C1111 pro(_:eecii1'1gs3 would .1119 (h>E"c:1d-mat. St3(tti<)11 17 2 't.(') \vh21:__ an adnlissicmg :i',1.f:b}'¢1.,vt.':C"'VlV'f"(',(',14 of an zzllctgcd T' c:ircumsta11c:<:rs Lzndc-zr which 'xvé1s' this mga11'd, it, would be z'1e(:e5as:21_1'y 10. A eX{i1'aCti the _juc!,g:11e1'1t of t.hc> Hu11'I:31€> 'V " Sufj:'e1ii;é: Ccmrt in:

1981 SC 2085 at 2093 Ramji VA . ]I)A£V'1yawa1a and sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Invest vlmport (C) Elviciexace Act, (1 of 1872). S. E?

A(3I11iSSi()'i'1S Vzxlurs of Aclmission, 1,1:1}.t:$5.-'3 ﬁx expIai1"1cd. f111'11is3E'1es the 330st c*\:'i(§v11<r<-:r. (1968) 70 C211 VVN 199, I-{ex-'e1'sc>d.

Sowcar Vs. S.L.Prasad AIR Knt.25.

Admission by pczrsons Lmlesss_u_fifi.c§ita:;ii:ly explaiined or L1nsuC:_3éssi'u11y7; w.itIn (fEr.2_mr1'*1 ' bi1'1C1S them. V _ _ .

Union of IndiLii:__ V.... Mtaaksﬁh Financiers Ltd.,'VL€1:1:d Qthﬁém-*,VV:AI:R 7 Para.21: " VA a:'1c:tilla.:'\' qL1§:Si;i._Qx1. .:;'."; '.~ V I": 1}25§'1:. ::ie1'c:r"1('Ia1T1 14. ./l_ioV\}--r:\re1f.. no 'i'o'1*(it-if in "$1113 other they are not 21d1nissi1')1c~:

" in st ciefendzmt. No.3 as mr W213. _1';0t --._cV(J1§fro111.ecl with {..hr;*.111 in me VA t,1'iEﬂ"CQ_1_.11*{. and they were not 21(.1ve:'se to , A'1.i*.f1e in£:<2r1'es{' of their n'1a1<er 211.. the t"in'1e x \4i?E'1.e;-'z'1 they were 1'1'1ad<3. Ii Emrs l)ce~:11 held this C<.)u1't. in 1--3h211'a1 S1';1;§1"1 Bhagi1'a11,}'1i, (E9636) 1 SCR 606 = {AIR 1966 SC 405) subst.a:'1tive evidcznce of the fzuti. 2.1d:'1':i1_.1:c(,l t:}1z.1t: an acin1isssi0n and that admissions duly proved are W ~..97_3_'~, "ac1111issi1')1e <=;'.vic1ci'1.(:e i:'i'cspc?("'%ivc _.0f \v11e1,§"11:1' the pe;1i't.y ['I1&iki1]§§ £=}21 1'}:-1_'1 i ' appee1i'ed in 1':h<=: witness box or '1';'k"(..';3'i'.}VV1'i-1..(:'i':. ;_. w11et.l1e1' thai: pariiy whcm 211J.})c?a..1ji:i§f_§".21s witness was (:<)i'11f;*(5ii1it3£i 'X-Viféiﬁ"v1ﬁh(ﬁ)$CV.' smienients in case i11'4'1Ti-..'<_A1ACi'¢i", E11'Sfé1t.iT1}1@7'!Tﬂ. V:A:»'.A coi11.ra1"y to £111 0 «...21(ii11iss$ib:1s . ' if i"Lf..:«1V1_j;i1 1 this View this; Ci3_£11'1' haér.ii01i1:ct'§: the cie<:isi<.)i'1 i1"1~..A'j (i(1iii§e'-1' I3j:'21§z1,_ci I3I'1zii*;{2=?i.i='2'i vs. Bhawani S'i4i;;_m.§c_i;-1 gliiié' I {I-"E:_5} a1$Q' . . '.

}£{)i1'itb(§'&iT"f'i'1)I1Si(Iif?1'(TC} and _21:jj_iS3.;1?.ei9:'-cc! in Wigrimrc. 01')' 1' * T. Eiviclé3:§A:1(:e3;"Kit)-1L11ﬁé"'I's/' Q' 1048 (at 1;)age 3]."

"":""'-I.'%'1V1i1».*, "of the H.ea11*Se1y rule is 11.11511' "£111.. V"exi,re1--\judicia1E a.ssc1'i.i()n is uuexgj'E'm"1e(.i' iinless 1".h€1'€ has bectii A.S{1ﬁ;];(')V.i€I"If='V 0pp0r1:1.1ni1'y 110 1031. 1h13 "'v1.4g:{"I'<J1.1I1C1s of £;1ssert.i0i'1 and the C1'e(§i[' of i,'}§.1é..\R'i1§[']€SS. by <.'.1*()$srcxamii"1z211'.i(>11 by the pa1'1'y e.ige1i1'is1", whom ii. is 1ii"1"(:;*.i*r:(.I [pos1:.'l362); (Lg. ifJo1'1es had $21id 01111 of (:0ui'1': "The: party opponem Smnh }3()i*1'()\veci this fi:i"1,y dollars". Sh'1i1'.1'1 is cmtiitieti to an opp<.)1'1::.mi1ty 1'0 1*m.s+::s» %~ .4"

1}} cxa111i1'1c:J<)11c2s upon t'h;.1i. E1SSC'21"Ii()l'I. E-3§§.;_1' if it is S111it;h himself W1'}() saicl <')1_141.. (~:.J'"_ T~.V_ c()u1"t1. "I b01'1'0weC1 this fifty Cigsxilzi Cexrtiamly Smith ca1m'10't. C()I?GpIaiI"} __(:)I~.[ﬁ§¥V1{ 'M of ()pp<.)1ft:unit.y to c1*Q:as"--ex§;1112'j1'1{;:"1:i{i'1<1§{:1ff'. bczfore his as-3-Sert:.icm z1_§i1_n:it'1:.é;»<:_I' him. Such a. 1'et;1.-Ipst xi%<)v_1.ii:1 bf:C' V;c'1]V1V'3$'-:%}:E I"(.i I-16:21:66: the ()1')'jc:c:t.'i'V('ni'bl' 1:1'1e"' Iiic%::1{;§$52':.¥;1.;::'1ﬁn falls awz1y..~ i_?C'3C'c':l1',V'.;"3J;'C'. 'tiljic §x":%_1'y ij)z1S'1":;:3 c;'>"EV' 1.1%.? . t:E:i1»L% _1'1cc<i an ad rule is 12ic:ki:'1g3j;L_3.Ei}«:., 31'L1dr.:1'1cc (_',f'~:iffOI'C1--i1}'*f' :1-1.3"} <)"'j;»( ):":.1.1rT1it.\,[' of 1 V, . ., > ~ L%$7_i)s§'; i'}(2't1"}:%_'.i1'15}1,"'i"()}'}ii' 'V No.3 hzid fuli """ ""appﬁez1r and c.ic:E'e11(.i 'iliiﬁsséﬁii-1%;b'Lii}_:ht%'did not do so and the against: him ex pewter.

;'f"1'1 C \I31'é11i1'1 t:i1'l«'T'even i.1".i@Ci to c-rxa111im-. him 11xi"S"'uw'1'1 V\/HTIIEESS. but his .':l})].)C£...iI"e-llICC :'-:':A6u.]'(,1 not be sccu1'c(.i in spin- of 1120 fbx' t1"1e iSS1.1(".' of st.1m:'11o1"1s(ts and 21 ' -.LA¥éV;a1*1'2111i'T. 'E'l'1ere {.}1e1'ef0rc, no I"or(:e in ihc: a1*gu.111e11t: 1.0 the C0m:1*a1"y.

22. In the i,nst:a1'11'. ilmrt-'3. an ;'1.d1'11i:..-;..si()£1 ~~a~bo11i relat1'(:)11s11ip c)fIa2u1dlord amd 1em.1.m and 1')e..1_smaer1i'. W ()f1'c-:11th.s by I:1'1£: (icfc1'1(£.2.u:11' 10 the pl.::21im:iIT not <..>a'11'_v in the p1ai1'1t of O.S.N0.1 104/2001 but also in the t?:x;2'11'1V}.iV1'1:&"1'1101":

in chief. Thus. ciefe:1(.ie11'1t:s in ilhtj p1'c=2sem of affi1'11'1at,i()11 tlhat. (;:011t.ents of 2.1ve1'me:1ts_. i.'1'},:p1a:i:'1i:

of O.S.N0. 1 104/200}. have V'e1'ii}¢(t1 at_i;1i4t::».iic:)(3't"- Vp0I_;1ia:;'. 1'A0 to be t;n..1€ and (I(I)l'l'€'(',1'. E)\rc1::in__ the "<j',I._3_]'érm"i(');10$}%f§}L:{V.1 tcgl the ~ appIi(.'.at:i(;m fileci 10n"1c£er O1'(ic%1'"?_(.1i,R1.11(§'(u §1'1c_y§? do 1'mi. deny this 1'aci:_. D(".'i"(_',1\i"l(,.i"c11~'1T. :j_'wi'ﬁ"<)V: hubs 1nz:1(.f<:= s1.:(._rh admission has» not ,~covni;:&::'ic1rh;c1_ thzlf ".711. is not" his aclmission 'of..t11c5§V0'0;1.dI':1js_sIQn t:}:1é§r.::i1h1, was nzladt--: 1.uh1(1er a pa:'1".iC:,iI'ar Sé¥TjQ.f (§if2fC1i..1Ji'S{.,E'l¥1(E€-S. i\I0t11i1h1g,[§ p1'C\:'(;'.i'1l.t.'Cf him I'1'0m eii.}';c;1'"see'i;i;'ig;l"é.E1é"---].§£i«'Jé of the C()'1,1rt. 1.0 explzain 1:110 said .21-cf¥n1isS'}o11'2:1Ss r§:qui1'c:d u_r1de1' Sect1'01'1 of 14119 'V'i§.\»%i€.0E'c~.}'h1(:%é' K-\"'(:~:ﬁ_ 01' 1'16 (*0uI("l Imvc-: s2;u'c'1 so in 1:mr(;1.:iv0(:'ta.} 'ihe1"171s0A ivzif-his.i0i3jt:L:t'.io11s state1'1'1€1'1t:. T119 s:~.m'1L'-1" has 110%. bcsch. clctsm,'-.-. «-"'1'hus, ciefendani. aifer eIe(:!:i:'1g.g to a.(:(_:<-rpt'. an V0a.:"l13'1_issiO11 made by him as valid and C()1"}.SiC'1t.'.l'iIlfi su(:l1 :1r:1mE'$sio11 made in 2:1 C0112-1t;<:ral p1*()<:ee(1ings. cleI'c-::1da11£h. 0' '"(tam10t: be pe1"mittie('i to (':1";2:11ic':11';_-_-;'c i:h<~:r said acfn1i.<;._s;i<__n.1 as ﬂ/..

-Jl '.Jl not bizlciing on him £11101 it wouid anmimt :0 z:11l{)wi:1g_{ iE'1c=:? defczndarlt to approbate and 1'ep1'obat.c. As heir! "::I').:,'3".V1.1"}C' Humble Supren1£: Co1.1rt_ in Ba1'1a1'2:si ' "&_'Vfc'.1 ' aclmission in so far as 1'a1c:ts are (:011<rc>1*1'j1.c%.(.§A"w(n-{Iii _l>i1:1'<:i the 1nz1ker 0i'ti1c-2 231c.im.issi0n. A1, 1"l'1bi,$ §1.1i'1_(.7E:iA1:1:'it'..'w{V)i.V;lc'IA' be r1(~:(i(~:sszu'y to a1'1a1vse,1l'.1_c (ié't:_isi'<:)s'1s ,V("'i 1:L'/?(j'1: %.'J_x_/; 1':I1<: Icama-'-rci Ac1\r(')('.at"e.<;.


ANAL&*Si-3 or 

Re:BasaI_1'-E vSing'h"$ 

(AIR    34;

In ti'1eV j u{1ga_ié:*:1i "it has been held ilmt an a1d111issi<)f1«.}jy. 2.1' pz1A1".E;y"«i 1~'L1 plalim: sig.§11(:ci zmcl v<:1"iI'ie(I by 1'1i1V_'n°<.1';.'1:__2,'1 prickSt.1.i__t_"_i&a an e:1dmissi0n wit'hi1'1 aha' mcraz"1i11g_{ V 0.1; of }.n(;E_ian EVidt3l"1(",€ Act 3972 znui 1'1'12-13:' be ;j:"<)'VecE 21géii_1.'r,:%t, mm in other litigatlions. Mr.K.S.Na ;,'{z;1z'21_ja R210 wouﬁd cc:)r1te.1T1c1 as p:*(wid<~:d under Sec'.t'ic_)n 17 o§'1l'1e E?viC'i'en(:e Act: said aclmission <:2m1'101 be (:c>n<':1:.1si\.»'e zmci A if is open to the pa1*1;y to Show 111131 SL1Cf1'1 2-1c:Imissi<')11 @v ' AIR 1%.; s(''..' was {I-'.:\%'{.:\ £3;

si.t:ua.E':i0n would I101'. arise as observeci In-:1*<=:i:1 2.11;><.)ve SiﬂC.'.€'. the ci.efe}'1ci211'1t. d(.)e:.-:. not dispute the ac.i11'1issi<.>11.;'"~, £3111. comcncis 111121?' the pI21in.1:i:ff has to ¥j1~{,)\:'C'V04O";'l"}BE] Utj;£'1 ('-;:;; su(:(:e@c1 on such 21d311issi01'1 in -the suit). flﬁ'}'"i'§?tT'.::_1L}'}C' :-"sé1'i--ci_« b' jmhig1"1'1<-31'1£ is of" not a1ss5i:st.2,1.1'1Cc'? it; c'1eii;jihic121":"115%'. ' Re: M/s. Jeevan Diesels' tfasé (2010/UR scu/2937') _ _ In 1:116: said case it ;__'l_.'1"2;1s I.iiee:ri"l:1_¢},d'~-At.}121t. eiAc1i:1'1isssi('):'1 is essentially a questi()I}_iaridv thf§._'--iticé(:isj<)11 of the case had be{é:11 (i;1_'1'"t:hé fa{:f.S"~efse1ici (:'cZlSt',. In the said it "\>c.>}i_'::;"41h1§:lt?!.__i1'hz1t'on E'a<:1.s lihzlt" i1'1t~.*.1'c' xvas 2.1 dis')1.1£h.e \7t'.i1'.1'1 ,I'c*:Vi5(¢11'(3 t0 'Q9'.ei.e1'm.i1'}aE"i<.)11 of Iv:'h1a1'1<'\/' and as s1:~c-331 i:L1'm H()1.'1'*--1:)Ig:_____C(.)1,1rig. Came to the ('to1'1('t1u5i.o1'1 1'h21.E"'. ' B21318--vQi'~ad_:ﬁissio11 01"d<-31' XI! Rule 6 <:21m1ot: be i1'w(:>!<c-tci. 'Asfleld %;L1}fi:~7135"ei11 it ciepends on facts ()fi'.11e c:a_s<: :'1:;;m'}eiy whc1..hé'}f there is 2}. Clear admission or 110:. In vicéxv of the (;1:;%'a«1' admission by tihe defer1dan_t. and i:1'1cr(: 1;)ei:'1g,§ no cierliai this Court: 0f1"}'1e ('.O]'1SidC1'Cd vicévx»-* that e_sai.c:i ck' j1,1ci.gn1er1t". is also in:_~1ppE3'c:abIe to the fa-1Ct's of the p:"es<3;_'1t. case.

Re:D.Satyanarayana's case.

/I987{4} SCC 424)] In the said c:z1Se t:I'1e lLjs:~;Q.1i jv11i{"'j2'51E_é==.(=1-"¢i::AVi}g_?ti:s;1'1 p1"L>L7ec?('Ii1'1gs against. the C?(=f(_;§:'1<'i21.m;_ at" wTi"1i'(:if..__poi1:i1' Vc)ﬁ'_ tilne t.e1'1a1I[1t without. su1'1'e:'1clLEé'1'jj1(;§VV }3<)Ss¢:s¢§ic311E2-1I4t.(m"1e(i his tenancy to the pa:--'--a1{3i:1(_>L1.nt4;_i,itIé:=.hnids31* and as $1.19!] it was co11i:er1ded.w.thai. S--eeti'o1'3 = 116' Qt' Evicic-,=.1'1(:e Act. would not: 2155211"... 'In' :.t_vl1e_.--iIi31',2111t "t:;1s<:% e11tv1"é1'1g %1'1i:(,) tease v1')j§/Wt§i"1:e.vi{.,c3I1ei'§};iI v§*'i'i'h' {.110;51:ii1'11,iIT not in (:li.<-;p1j:t:<=;r. Peiyniieﬁfj. 0:." 1"e1=1'( '1'O: 'the._;5ia'ir1i.iff not in ciispn2.c, 'i'l'1<:re is no .a1t':'t'01'1'ir:'1§1"3Vt.bf 1'e.1'1a'r[1cy by the t':e11e-uni in t'.f'2e i11.=;a.a11i. "-.caSe €10'. E';-he. z'1I1é'g_§é(i pa1'amo1.11'1t "title hc_)_1c1cr who deft-31:'1da11t: is BDA. II; is 1301" si;a_t'ec1 in t.E'1Ac2~..p?:)_}<~3.:":{"igjm'st21femem__ that tenancy has b(:c1'1 2;1.t',t'omc:d '"g_ '=1:g) jI3I).Px.., ; In fact: t.c-rnant has filed a suit' 2-igﬂgaailxst I-SDA 'w3'i3I:1_.5a. prayer to i}'1€1I'iC .=;1.1I01'.1'11c1'1t' of suii. ${..'1'1.L.E("1kli(T 45/ I applied 10 , property in its favcmr (f'irs{. C1efer1cia1ni;). As such the $:51i(i j11C1§__;§I11t§1'11. is i1'1ap1.)iiCabi€ to the f£}(jfl'.S of the ;)1'c%sc_1"iT1_6:11:50. Re: Uttam Singh Dugal and Co.

[AIR 2000 SC 2740) It 112.15 been herkl Ihe1'ei1'1 Il'T1:_1§ '«{Vi":'~s__§ '1} )1"c.)_yé':~gViv;..;1'iVé;wA_of x Order XII Rxzle (5 i.c.._ _j1.:('lx;3.T;'acé11E 0:1'"--"admi'Ss.iVbris":'; 1"'u}e"x would apply when than-2 is 2i"rr.: i€:41_1' a1d1';1i;§si(>1'1 of" 11:01. in the face of which foaj. .{;1'1":ii_=]jJ'a1ft'y 11'1a1l<i1_'ag such admission to S1,1CC,('3€C1.._ =.W'*1i_1e.:1 "i{1<1vcV"=Sz1i'('l_ ;Jr1'11cipiC is "£5 1) 1111*: "t:a.s_v% »211 1'('1" 'c'x.'211ni:1c:(.! it 1"m..uT1d that iii? 1 "1504 1'1 §i1VjV'1Vc?i§I the sun. 1'iEc(.i by 1130 1'i1'sI". cicv-'*,'§'e1'u'.idV:"31~: EQA. ii. (tont'.e:1'1(.1(:(.f 1l'1m"<:i21 i'h21t. Ci(Tlb1'1CiE1l11. i"'1'3__d 'é,a..i.{cn :('i)1Ti lease of suit s(:i'1cc.i:.1lci~. p1"opc:rt::y from" ;:~,1ai1*11.j_f'i' l1c:1*Vé'i'i31 anti rents were bc-.ing_;' .~_.spIi1 -(ind pV;a1_i.dV ' >--i;_'i1"1'cV-zje.p.e1's01'1s namely pl2.1im.i1'i'. his wife and his <1a1ugl1_L<:r WEIAO were re-:(:eiving Rs.7,00()/~ (;'a1(.:l'1 E"1'om the lie..n2.-1I1{:-J:1'C1'ei1'1. Tlms t:i':ere is a clear admis:sio1'1 emd on

7..{'}'1'e ..f21.cc? of 11,, 1'1': g()cs {.0 $l1(')w it em :.111vq1t1'v<)(::d] u ....aci111issi()1'1 on the par! of the c!c:fc11c'i2'111E.. E\m1'1 c::»1'l''%m"wis(>, 4%?

(it) in the 0}3jeetione'3 filed to the applicration Ethe (.fefe.11(fe_1nf' does not deny of havhlg made the admission 1:)_}_1 V:_V_v"~*e..>4'\_:«*"<..:..1___;1(i ec:mtc-rnd that" based on sxxeh 21dn'1is:-sioh . prove the szame a1"1d :5u('.<"'.(?e(f. .E.;1'»1"V\:_§e\v '.()"f'"'Ei'l"1.:t:.'_':vV' p1'inc*.ipIes enunciated in £.!'u':_s to the fa(:1.s oft.11e present:

Re:S. Thangagpan'§V_ch@§}3' .

/1999(7) sec 4%72:;,5"%e - M in the Said ease the ;;«¢:;«;1.mo¢m»:% f.i{3,i;e 1310"!'c.1e:' had filed .21 suit." in :'esp_ec,1: (;:1E_f"1.!;j:e..1.e1"1éuf1teQ! p;:feu1i.éVes amd as sm_:]'1 the Lenzmai s(~;.'1'_TA:'j'aj:'1,_..;1_AV1fa.lL~e_:,fi1g;i '!e:s$c>1* was 1101': the I;;:_u(:.{!<')r(:1 and i;11e1fe'_eXi$1:ed*1:1E:;«.__ 1"c§1aticmship of Iamcilord e»1:'1c'1 te11a5r:t;._ the mzmclate of Section IE6 of the V"EyfiVde11"t:e A(:.i:_it, was held 1..ha'{; once iridueted as 21 1.e.na_n1:_ L'--t.gy«.{'1:l1e'findEdjfclf he eannoti deny his (Ia1'1ci}('>r'd:s] t"1'.1__Ie and c.fe%}5a1's v--..'c.ie11yi1'1g title from the l3c%gi1'e11ai1'1g of t1'1e t':e.n2-11':('ry. .e,'i;r)-.x_m-3vCi:". ciei'eet.ive title of such Izmcilmd mule} be it E;.1'1'1y°wl'1e11 the 12mc11()r('E loses the title u1'1(le1' any iaw or V' "':'ig,.§:'<:%c%1I1c%1'3t'. 2;-111ci there 2.1 l'E'"1:'c=':e-H" to .<_;u<:1'1 {.enzn'1t. of his We (":3 it has bec'.1"i held 1'h.er<-éiii that in 2.1 suit for q}'cct1'1'm'1i i'i"1c:* 1C1'}E':1I1*{ would be esmppeci .i"rcm1 (11.i(TS1i(..)I']i1'If;{ 1".]"1(,.' 'i.'!"{>}.'_.V'. of the Ia.nc1I01'ci in View of St:'(",1i()I'1 H6 01' the 'i:*'.;¥';.I.'('iCT'i..l;i.'?.¢.'fuf:%§..;1' _ to (?(mti<:11d that the iemd lord i'i1'(.1A§l 110 i'.iI"E'(E*."bif-*';;1str_zuiy"

p1'c11'iis¢2s when ilic 1,c:1'1e-1111: was ':i_1'1cil:i.'iciriiiécif»._'i'7l'i£= §.)u1':.i\"'I"'1.(".i'.:'}§:7.*'iE', em.mciai.(~:d iher<3in would"b€--.§.qLia1AIvely 7'ipfj._1ic.-,»:l. facts of the present case.

Re: Banarsi j.

(AIR I963_SC I I.55,J_ It'. has I3€.__<:'«2'1*Ejéigi.f.i.h<t_i'<1;iii._t1i.e far:.1ii1Essi(;)1'is in so I'};=1r as facts £{1.I'("?. _ VA(A'T(V§J:*1(.T_QIv":'I"]('C1'V i'\~'-.rQ1.i_l(i bind 111'}:-3 iiizikvi' of the aciniissiioné'and=i_t.Vu}Q:.i_i'ti__;i()i bind in so far as; it. i'€;~1e1'i.<:~.g/4' to 21 q}..i(-::3_i'.i01'1 (3f Eé1W, 'wiie1'(»3LiiiCl<:i' the word "z-idn'1i:ssi(.n"1"

" ai.<;:*fi11(:€'ii.Ji'1"c1_ei' Sectioii I'? .has been (.t()1"isi(':Ici'e?(..l :.-2i.i"i(..i iii 1"'.]"1-E-: V.iA1'iEii;i'2:';.:.'V1t, the ciefericlam: in O.S.N(.>. I E. 04 / 2001 1'IaiS-- z.»1ci.i51i1ii.i'j&(.1 tI"1e1t: he was ii'i('I1.z(tit:cI as 2-1 i'.L-niaiil by {"1110 p}.;«1_i111.il"i"' 2-iiid 2.1.5; sz1('l"i E-idI11iSSi()11 is E.)ii'1(ii1"1;g on i1"1c-' ,,/{(:i"ie'iA1'1.i'.. 'i'hc said _j1..id§_{111C?I'11' is also e1p1:)1i(..'.aE:3I(-:3 E0 t.i"1v I';.«.:(:1s V' bf the 13l't'.S€l'1{'. Case. &/ '*1~.('.'m ti) i:i'1c:-i' ()3 Re: I.T.D.C. Ltdb case .1999 AIHC I 990 in the S'c}i('ijl41Ci§__§l'J3.(';',l1I. it has been hclcri 1:11at"' on 4.l.lV1Tc,_E':)::'.1:Sis of z21dmissi<)1'1 1na(.i(' (:IeCr<=:t:: for ]')()SS€?Ssi(>F:1 .('."'t."','..1..¢,"I'i~-(--.1:' *'i_) C pg-1ssr3d. In the i1"::st:;:m. céase. Vrjiib :i1df'it:'«c§tji. Vi'f1rm"i.V 1.1%?"

admission is i:J:in.c.iing to the c":s:I:e1j1't.r «Jf "U_i1'i';'.(')"1'}1.i:'t)i?£':l:i.§-Ed f':'.iC'{. and corroboratecl by Ei>C§i'Hi.SSi01A'1'-r1'1adC:iI'l"$;i"(:}£').HEiI@1113'V ' prc'>c:eedi1'1gs namely Q.S.N0,_]..l:G4/"2001'2i12r.1_£1;5'§s{.1(.:l"1 €111:-'2 pr1'r1(:iples <';',11UI"1('.E€1f,E'.(:f'111-H'1_(3V§';'.Svi1id'--;iLE,(f§gI]1(i11I. (f;1_1m01. be held to be a13p_Ei'c.2__1}3le:'id"flag: 1fa51c':.:f3. V_()f7 Er.iVj1r;§f' (E2Il.5.a'<3 in tom anal E1. cz>.11'};::«c.;>-E- béi «.11e1'(.i::;;_I..Ij12r1_ﬁvelz 1'*e,gg;1vi*cii1'}g i.(';.'I'1 1':i1'm.Ii<_:1"1. is also cice:1rC--e:'E tr)' be 'c'i'LI.V(;'."t*3.'_I§}'l'nT;"',vd"%VhQ1'1.01'] fac1.s it: is ('Eispm.cd_ Re}S--Ij%ikhV'c1rcAi:,v<in..rii and othersis case "(AIR .1 QMM. P, 75) '!'.hVé w'"ordﬁtherxvisc: as found in Order XII Ruiz? E5 was 'tilt:-fl?' Stzbﬁgt. v3?;';ei"t,e1' of ir1t;erpretatii()11 wherein it' Ems E:>c*,e-2:1 l'1CE"d t:l'z_:§1i', "iris ()per1 to 1.112 Court, to base itts ~;':1c._1g'_3;1'r1':(:1"1i on s;fi.;a_1.@1'1'i(%1'11' 1TI2'1(jI(? by 21.1 p:;'1r1'.y not oniy in 11h er ]')I(.'2i(T§i:"1}.§S bu 1..

"aES§()'Ade'f1o:*s me. pieaciings W}'1C§1'} suck} 21c.'I1'1'1issic)1'1s 0111101' u "éxp1'ess1},-* or (?()I'"1S1i!'iICii.iV€ly macicé. Q, (>43

23. In View <.)i"i,}1e said fz21ct,L12il axspc-?ci.s as is 1::)1'0sac111' in the I'aCt's of the present": Case, I am of Tim (t():"1:~.g.ig'_1<-;>1"céci View that trial Court was jusi'ified in a1io\.ving I.;€\".'~i.1'1 part 10 i;h<;'. exieiit. of admission which. i"--.: 1§é V:*:=.;E1Vi';2'iiizéfd. un1'eb1,.1t'1'e=.d and LE}'1(.I()I'I'{i.1'()\z'€3}'I.(5C1 -.21"i'ir;ii-- w1'1i,ci 1 _. 1": '. jn (.13 1; ---15:32:;-.1 'n denied. Ac:c:o1'dir'igiy = dismissed. V H i

24. 11:1 so fa'1:",---;}s 'o»'»"'vi:"]i('1'] has bE',t".I.1 ﬂied by the piziiiiiiiiif zzgzrfi1'i.st§_«'t:i'i€...i'cfus;21_I. to <.ic=2m'ce the Sam' i11Ai,'<;idi*r>.\eiS;;V }f)i7;11'_§r'f:'V'/H_C.1 .f()_':' in I.A.N0.8 zaiiso (.1005 1'%(')1'. ('mi i'<)1"£11)t'€i1'I'c31"e:1'1('r<§§ ' !'Q'f'«~..i:'i1i(§ 1*e2'1s()n 1'1()1'i(?(;', iss1__1e(.1 by i_i"1t:

pIe;1ig'i1','if1'. a11(4i"~i_héf(_:<)1":.ten1s i;i"2e1'c0I 21:5 5-iisn (-min'; i1'1e'»i(:1r;:

i:l.1éumi1:i denied by the defenciailii in pe;11'2:-1gz'211311s "a:f'1€i. iiiie written si,211:.en1eni.. As sucrh t:ria.i C0ii:1't jusi;ified -in r<=:jeci:ing the ciriaim. oi" t.h'c p1aii"1t:iff sand xvds 2'ig.i1t in not d€(?}'€€Iﬂg the Suit. in iis (:m'.i1*ety. "'}'I1"<:"cc:m1:en1:i0n of the 1c:a11'1'1cd c:<:)1.mse1 for 1.110 pIai.11t.ifi' $12.11 a.iiowi11g.; an appiiczrmiori iiicd 1_1_i':(,ic:'r ()rd<':=r Xii i-"mien, 63 Q' (")3 in part. wcmld not Ls-___{et: it's<:~._1f cryst,a1isec.i 1.0 a C1C(_'_1_'C(,: as 1'c<:;ui1'<--3d 1,1nclc=:;* Rule 2 of Order XII inapplicable" to the facts of the zzrassc ::=,i1';a':'¢ ' t'.}.1.¢ 1.1s3ec.i in Orc'1e1" XII R1.1Ic: 6 a1'cf"'f11ake "_4su.c}i'-7§.r.'de.f?' L31' "give such judgment" H€1'1LfE2. <)_1"1}y.w'h(:i'1._§I,1<i_L3;1Tié;-;;1':.3;Vit§:

p1'oz1()1.111<:ed u1'1dc1* S11E3--1'1.1hi:'.?».V"{-T./'} tho..ti<3g:{*¢_:c 'z\vViiuI(.i bc:

drawn and if an (')1"(iai%1'.__§s é">'t',.1 l")""1""[V1v:lt'-T [1] the (:onseqL1(2nC<~:s 1.11c:*e1';<.$x1iAV' H<:~.:'1cc.-., 1.116.' (:()ntem:i()1'1 Q'f' ever an o1'c1c1' is passed ii. should gcti 1:31:11"

c1c(.:1'ec (::;-1.1mm. be 21(7<'.c,pE.ACL'..1V_ anCl' 1'e_je<ti,c(1. In vivw 0!' me O Ci1iSf1}i.'_-3SC3Ci.

V """ POINT NO.2 1 fan' as the (':i'121.1le:1ge :0 H16 order datcd 24';..7~2._O.10""j3e1sse(i on I.A.No. '10 1"eject,i;'1g the (:1g:;:i.m of 1:119 Adr;t1.'L-r1'1(v.Vi'é-11'1i: to reframc the is;-;sI,1cs would. virillzﬂly not "'V$€11'\}ixrca in vi.ew of tile. 01"(it'3r c:1a1c:d 21w} 1w2()O9 ;)e;ms:é<i by "t'}'1c;- t,ria.11 Court on the }:Jzk.sis ofw}'1i(_r}?: it he-.1_(:§ <:'£j>51':1i.s:s<.éc'i Q,

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court