Delhi District Court
M/S Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd vs Narender Singh And Ors on 24 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR-II, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CS No. 513/20
In the matter of:-
M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Having its Regd. Office at:
5/1, Doctors Lane, Gole Market,
New Delhi-110001.
Through its Authorized Representative:
Sh. Manoj Bansal.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Narender Singh
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
R/o C/1095, LIG, DDA Flat,
East Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
2. Mr. Ajay Yadav
S/o Late Narender Singh Yadav
R/o A-3, Indian Express Apartment,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110096.
3. The Sub-Registrar IV-A,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
.......Defendants
24.01.2024
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 under Section 151 CPC.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the CS No. 513/20 1 defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction claiming therein that the defendant no.2 had no right to sell the suit property measuring area 200 sq. yds. (30ft x 60ft) bearing property no.C-8, Plot No.8 in Block C, Kailash Nagar Colony, Delhi, to defendant no.1 as defendant no.2 has illegally and fraudulently executed a sale deed dated 01.01.2007 in favour of the defendant no.1 by claiming himself as director of plaintiff company when he himself was restrained from doing so by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
The defendant no.1 & 2 both have filed their separate written statements taking various preliminary objections with a prayer to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
Whereas the plaintiff has filed the present application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing judgment on admission made by the defendant no.2 in his written statement.
The defendant no.2 has only contested the application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and has filed reply to the present application denying all the assertions made therein and has prayed for dismissal of the said application.
Arguments on this application were heard on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no.2.
During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued and submitted that the defendant no.2 has admitted the restrainment order in his para 1 (f) of preliminary objection of written statement and his written statement further reveals that defendant no.2 is not at issue with the plaintiff at any fact and the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint have been admitted by the defendant no.2. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further CS No. 513/20 2 submitted that the defendant no.2 has already admitted in his written statement that he was restrained from representing himself as director of plaintiff company vide order dated 06.10.2006 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS No. (1906/2006) titled as "Capital Land Builders & Ors. Vs Shaheed Memorial Society & Ors." but surprisingly he still chose to execute a fraudulent sale deed dated 01.06.2007 despite knowing the fact very well that he could not do so and that by doing so his act would be termed as contempt of court. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that as such there is no need to carry on the suit further for framing of issues or evidence and the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and consequent decree forthwith having regard to the admissions of facts made by the defendant no.2 in his written statement.
Per contra, ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 vehemently opposed the application of the plaintiff, submitting that the plaintiff is guilty of attempting to delay the false suit filed by him, in futile manner, since the plaintiff has every knowledge that the suit is not maintainable as the claimed directors of the plaintiff company, who has filed instant application, had become directors of plaintiff after forging the documents and share transfer deeds qua 500 shares of M/s Shaheed Memorial Society Regd. and such claimed directors stood already removed in the year 2006 and 2007 but such removal was never challenged till date as such the removed directors have no locus to maintain the application. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that filing of Order dated 06.10.2006 may at best be construed as a general averment regarding the passing of the order by Hon'ble CS No. 513/20 3 High Court of Delhi but cannot be construed such an averment the filing of which may warrant orders under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In fact the defendant is not even required to rebut the filing of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is claimed in the application since the defendant No.2 has already submitted that the plaintiff had obtained said order, fraudulently through misrepresentation. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that the contents of order dated 06.10.2006 are disputed by the defendant no.2 and never admitted, which fact is evident out of the contents of para 1(f) of the written statement filed by the answering defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that at the same time filing said order to dispute the same can never be construed the admission as falsely claimed by the plaintiff applicant. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that there has been unequivocally total difference between filing of said order for the sole purpose of disputing the contents and passing of the same, by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on being misled by the plaintiff and clear admission of the contents of said order. Hence said order has been obtained by the plaintiff after playing fraud upon Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in CS (OS) 1906/2006 and the same was interim order not the final order. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that no decree even otherwise could be passed under Order XII Rule 6, on the basis of interim order passed in CS (OS) 1906/2006, which is pending adjudication. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that the plaintiff is further guilty of concealment since the de-facto & claimed directors of plaintiff have not disclosed the Orders dated 04.02.2019 and CS No. 513/20 4 07.03.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 1906/2006, wherein the application u/O XXXIX Rule 4 C.P.C., filed by defendant no.2 & other defendants therein, including answering defendant, was also allowed and plaintiffs and defendants are restrained from dealing, alienating, encumbering and/or parting with any of the assets or properties of plaintiff No.1 company, till the decision of CS (OS) 1906/2006. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that under such circumstances order dated 06.10.2006 has no independent value since the same has merged with order dated 07.03.2019. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that the plaintiff had preferred appeal against said order, however, Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased not to set aside the entire order, but to modify the same to the extent that in case plaintiff wished to sell any of the properties, it will inform the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi before such transaction. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 further submitted that it is pity on the plaintiff that the plaintiff is claiming the filing of order, which was also set aside, as purported admissions of fact and mere filing of Order cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 has placed reliance on following citations:-
i S.M. Asif Vs. Virendar Kumar Bajaj (2015) 9 SCC
287.
ii Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No.4545 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13800 of 2021).
CS No. 513/20 5iii M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.4344 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2689 of 2009). iv J.C. Galstaun Vs. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd., reported in 27 Calcutta Weekly Notes (1922-23) 783 & v Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja, Civil Appeal No.2483 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No.1048 of 2020). I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no.2.
Before appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer the relevant provision of law i.e Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under:-
ORDER XII RULE 6:-
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 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.
It is well settled principle of law that under Order XII rule CS No. 513/20 6 6 CPC, the plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment on admission of facts having been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether oral or in writing. It is no more res-integra that admission need not be made expressly in the pleadings. Even on constructive admissions, court is empowered to proceed to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff. The object of Order 12 Rule 6 is to enable the parties to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief plaintiff is entitled to, on the basis of admission by the defendant. The admissions as called for under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC need not be only upon the pleadings, but can be "or otherwise" i.e. oral and written submissions, wherein defendant admits or points towards his liability.
In the present case the plaintiff has filed instant application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 seeking judgment on the basis of admission made by defendant no.2 in his written statement.
I have perused the written statement of defendant no.2. A perusal of the written statement of defendant no.2 clearly reveals that the defendant no.2 is not at issue with the plaintiff at any fact, and the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint have been admitted by the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 has admitted the restrainment order in his written statement in para 1
(f) of preliminary objections. It is pertinent to mention here that he has himself filed an order dated 06.10.2006 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS No.(1906/2006) titled as "Capital Land Builders & Ors. Vs Shaheed Memorial Society & Ors" with his written statement which has restrained the defendant no.2 and his associates from representing themselves CS No. 513/20 7 as shareholders /representatives of the plaintiff company. Therefore, evidently, the fact that the defendant no.2 had no right to sell the suit property i.e. freehold built up property measuring area 200 sq. yds. (30ft x 60ft) bearing property no. C-8, Plot No.8, in Block C, Kailash Nagar Colony to defendant no.1 stands proved. Further, the defendant no.2 has illegally and fraudulently executed a sale deed dated 01.06.2007 in favour of defendant no.1 by claiming himself as director of plaintiff company when he himself was restrained from doing so by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The said order was further confirmed by Divisional Bench and further by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The defendant no.2 was infact well aware about the restrainment order and surprisingly, he still chose to execute a fraudulent sale deed dated 01.06.2007 despite knowing the fact very well that he could not do so and that by doing so his act would be termed as contempt of court. As such there is no need to carry on the suit further for framing of issues or evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and consequent decree forthwith having regard to the admissions of facts made by the defendant no.2 in his written statement.
It is a well settled legal proposition that order 12 rule 6 can be invoked when there is specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record. In the instant case, there is clear admission on part of defendant no.2 and the document showing his restrainment is also filed by him alongwith his written statement which is at page nos.106-107 of list of documents filed by him.
CS No. 513/20 8In case titled as "Ashok Kumar Bagga vs Ravinder Kaur" it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that admission should be unequivocal and unambiguous and therefore, appeal filed by the appellant herein against the judgment and decree passed vide which the Ld. Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the Respondent on an Application under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.
Further, in case titled as "Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Vs Union Bank of India & Ors." it has also been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the denial is evasive and the learned judge is perfectly justified in holding that there is an unequivocal admission of the contents of the documents and what is denied is extent of the admission but the increase in the liability is admitted.
Further, in case titled as "Monika Tyagi. Vs Subhash Tyagi" the defence taken by the defendants was a complete moonshine and the application under Order 12 Rule 6 was allowed. Further, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the while disposing of an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the court is fully justified in considering the averments in the written statement to see whether essential facts have been pleaded or whether the defence is a complete moonshine, requiring the court to not send the case for trial.
Further, in case titled as "P.P.A. Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mangal Sain Mittal it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that So far as the case relating to Order XII Rule 6 is concerned, the Supreme Court has recommended resort to this provision to bring a quick end wherever a vexatious and false CS No. 513/20 9 defence has been presented.
Further, in case titled as "Sh. Rajeev Tandon & Anr. vs Smt. Rashmi Tandon" it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that vague, unsubstantiated and evasive pleas have been held to be sufficient ground to hold that there are admissions in the pleadings and a decree is liable to be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Now as far as defendant no.2 is concerned, he has made absolutely vague submissions while opposing the instant application filed by the plaintiff. It is absolutely vague submission of the defendant no.2 that claimed directors in the present suit stood removed in the year 2006 and 2007 and that the said order has not been challenged till date. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimed directors are still directors of the plaintiff company and the defendant no.2 has failed to show any order to substantiate his submission.
The defendant no.2 has taken the objection that filing of order dated 06.10.2006 may at best be construed as a general averment regarding the passing of the order by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but cannot be construed such an averment the filing of which may warrant orders under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. This contention of defendant no.2 has no force as the defendant no.2 has already admitted that stay order was passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, therefore it is crystal clear that the submissions made by the defendant no.2 in para 2 of his reply are absolutely vague.
The defendant no.2 has also submitted that the plaintiff has concealed orders dated 04.02.2019 and 07.03.2019 passed by CS No. 513/20 10 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS)1906/2006, wherein the plaintiffs and defendants were restrained from dealing, alienating, encumbering and/or parting with any of the assets or properties of plaintiff no.1 company. It is pertinent to mention here that the said order was challenged by the plaintiff in FA(OS)90/2019 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to stay the said orders vide order dated 29.04.2019 in so far as it restrains the plaintiffs from dealing with properties of the plaintiff company. It may not be out of place to note herein that the defendant no.2 has very cleverly placed orders of restrainment but has failed to produce the subsequent order where the plaintiff was granted interim relief against the said order.
Even otherwise, the defendant no.2 and his associates were restrained way back in 2006 from representing themselves as director or representative of plaintiff company. The instant sale deed is of 01.06.2007. Therefore, the defendant no.2 had no right to transfer the said property by representing himself as director of plaintiff company. It is a well settled law that any sale deed executed after the restrainment order of the Hon'ble High Court is a nullity. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant no.2 alongwith other contemners violated the order dated 06.10.2006 before also and four of them were held guilty of contempt of court vide order dated 20.04.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It may not be out of place to note herein that all the four contemners were detained in civil prison for a period of two weeks. Further, all the properties were also directed to be attached vide order dated 25.05.2009 passed by CS No. 513/20 11 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 1906/2006.
It has now been well settled by pronouncements of the Apex Court rendered in almost similar situations where properties in suit were sold by some parties to litigation who had been restrained from selling the same or creating third party interest in those properties then no transfer of title/right gets transferred so long as there is a restrain order of the court in operation. In all those cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while disposing contempt applications, has observed that nothing needed to be done in respect of those sales except to declare in contempt proceedings itself that all those transfer of properties were void and were to be simply ignored and the sale documents did not pass over the title in the suit properties to the third parties.
In "Surjit Singh & Anr. vs Harbans Singh & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when any sale deed is executed after restrainmnet order, the same will be treated as non-est. As noted above, the pleas taken by the defendant no.2 in the written statement are vague, inconsistent and do not in any manner whatsoever show that any worthwhile defence is raised or any right exists in favour of the defendant no.2 to enable him to continue with the suit. It is crystal clear that there was restrainment order as against the defendant no.2 and still he chose to execute a fraudulent sale deed dated 01.06.2007 despite knowing the fact very well that he could not do so. If sale deed is executed after restrainment order, then the restrainmnet order will hold no value. Therefore, the sale deed executed by the CS No. 513/20 12 defendant no.2 post restrainment order is liable, admist other reliefs, to be declared as illegal, invalid, non-est and not binding upon the Plaintiff Company and that no rights thereunder have accrued to Defendant no.1 and 2 or any other person claiming through or under them.
In view of the abovesaid reasons, the application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC is disposed off as allowed and suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring sale deed dated 01.06.2007 duly registered with office of Sub-Registrar IV-A, Shahdara, Delhi, as Registration No.2055, in Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.338, on pages 18-25, on 01.06.2007, and all other documents like GPA, Agreement to Sell, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Possession Letter, Affidavits, Receipts etc. allegedly executed by or in favour of the defendant no.1 and 2 with respect to suit property i.e. "freehold built up property measuring area 200 sq. yds. (30ft. x 60 ft.) bearing property no. C-8, in Block C, forming part of Khasra No.853, 855/1, 861/1, 862, 863, 864, 1017/865, 868, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 1132- 1133/892 situated in the MCD approved colony known as Kailash Nagar vide resolution No.855, dated 06.10.1961, under Section 313 of DMC Act, 1958, at the area of Village Gokal Pur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110093, (more specifically shown in red colour in the digitally constructed approved plan of the colony) as illegal, invalid, non-est and not binding upon the plaintiff company, and that no rights thereunder have accrued to the defendant no.1 and 2 or any other person claiming through or under them. Further, the defendant No.3 is directed to cancel the CS No. 513/20 13 registration of the Sale Deed dated 01.06.2007, registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar IV-A, Shahadara, Delhi, as Registration No.2055 in Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.338 on pages 18-25 on 01.06.2007, and all other documents like Agreement to sell, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Possession Letter, Affidavits, Receipts etc. allegedly executed by or in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2 with respect to the suit property i.e. "freehold built up property measuring area 200 sq. yds. (30ft. x 60 ft.) bearing property no. C-8, in Block C, forming part of Khasra No.853, 855/1, 861/1, 862, 863, 864, 1017/865, 868, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 1132-1133/892 situated in the MCD approved colony known as Kailash Nagar vide resolution No.855, dated 06.10.1961, under Section 313 of DMC Act, 1958, at the area of Village Gokal Pur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi- 110093, (more specifically shown in red colour in the digitally constructed approved plan of the colony). No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed by RAMESH (Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and RAMESH KUMAR pronounced in open court on 24.01.2024). KUMAR Date:
2024.01.24 16:46:51 +0530 (RAMESH KUMAR-II) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI CS No. 513/20 14