Delhi High Court - Orders
Veena Channa vs Ravinder Nath Tikku & Ors on 28 October, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1219/2014
VEENA CHANNA .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Manisha Dhir with Mr.Piyush
Sanghi, Ms. Khushbu Sahu and Mr.
Nikhil, Advocates.
versus
RAVINDER NATH TIKKU & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Harsh Khanna with Mr. Sandeep
Khanna, Mr. Rishabh Tyagi and Ms.
Jayati Sidana, Advocates for D1.
Ms. Rachna Agrawal, Advocate for
D3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 28.10.2025 I.A. 19259/2023 (by plaintiff - u/O XII R 6 CPC)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the instant application.
2. The case of the applicant is vested on the premise that the documents filed along with the instant application would clearly indicate that the defendant no.1 has taken a contrary stand to the documents which have been obtained by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that Late Sh. Shashinder Nath Tikku was of mentally unsound mind and had never executed any Will. According to the plaintiff, any Will produced by the defendants is a false and fabricated document. The said assertion has been This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:11:20 justified on the basis of the medical examination report dated 29.08.1984 and the informal register maintained by Cheshire Homes, Delhi.
3. Ms. Manisha Dhir, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of I.T.D.C. Ltd. v. Chander Pal Sood & Son1, and Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal2.
4. The aforesaid submissions are strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1 and he contends that he is the lawful owner of the suit property based on a valid registered Will executed by his mother, father and younger brother Late Sh. Shashinder Nath Tikku. According to him, the plaintiff , Veena Channa is fully aware of his Will but has filed the instant suit with false and misleading statements allegedly to harass or extort him. It is further submitted by the defendants that the documents which are sought to be produced by way of the instant application are not admissible as evidence, and therefore, cannot be the basis for decreeing the suit at this stage. According to him, even the written statement was filed way back in the year 2014 and no replication was filed by the plaintiff within the permissible time limit. According to him, the position taken by the defendants remains uncontroverted.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the legal position which has been propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its recent decision Rajiv Ghosh considered the interpretation of the expression "otherwise" occurring in Order XII Rule 6 Civil Procedural Code, 1908 1 2000 SCC OnLine Del 114 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 751 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:11:20 (CPC) while dealing with the scope of a judgment on admissions. The Court elaborated that the term is of wide import and empowers courts to pass judgments not only on admissions made in pleadings but also on those made in documents or oral statements recorded in court. Relevant portion of the decision is extracted as under:-
35. The words "or otherwise" are wide enough to include all cases of admissions made in the pleadings or de hors the pleadings. Under Rule 6, as originally enacted, it was held that the words "or otherwise" without the words "in writing" used in Rule 1 showed that a judgment could be given upon oral or verbal admission also. [See:
Beeny, re, (1894) 1 Ch D 499] The Amendment Act of 1976, however, made the position clear stating that such admissions may be "in the pleading or otherwise" and "whether orally or in writing". Thus, after the amendment in Rule 6, the admissions are not confined to Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order 6, but are of general application. Such admissions may be express or implied (constructive); may be in writing or oral; or may be before the institution of the suit, after the suit is brought or during the pendency of proceedings.
36. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court very correctly laid down the following interpretation of the provision of O. 12, R. 6, CPC, in the decision of ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son, reported in (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB): (2000 AIHC 1990):
"Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court. Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing."
37. The use of the expression 'otherwise' in the aforesaid context came to be interpreted by the High Court. Considering the expression the Court interpreted the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also dehors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties' statement is recorded under O. 10, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matters in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein.
7. It is to be noted that the documents which are sought to the relied upon by the plaintiff do not belong to the defendants. It is not the position which has ever been admitted by the defendants at any point of time. It is a This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:11:20 settled principle of law that under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC the admission should be clear, unequivocal and unambigious. This Court in Smt Neeru Mehra V. Smt Astha Ghai Walia & Anr. 3has held as under:-
"19. However, in this case, the issues raised involve mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be resolved purely on the basis of admissions and require proper adjudication. Furthermore, the discretion of the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The general rule in matters of admission is that pleadings must be read in entirety, and admissions cannot be seen in isolation."
8. Under these circumstances, unless the documents are fully proved during the course of the evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be the reason to decree the suit at this stage. Under these circumstances, the Court do not find it appropriate to pronounce the decree. However, all rights and contentions are left open to be adjudicated during the course of trial.
9. The application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 1219/2014, CRL.M.A. 48758/2018 & I.A. 7943/2014
10. With the consent of the plaintiff, name of defendant no.3 stands deleted.
11. Let the amended memo of parties be filed within a period of seven days.
12. List before the Joint Registrar on 02.12.2025.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J OCTOBER 28, 2025 tr/sp 3 CS (OS) 311/2021, dt. 08.01.2025.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:11:20