Delhi High Court - Orders
Smt Neeru Mehra vs Smt Astha Ghai Walia & Anr on 8 January, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 311/2021
SMT NEERU MEHRA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. Mohammad
Ali, Advs.
versus
SMT ASTHA GHAI WALIA & ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Ajay Choudhary, Adv for defendant
no.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 08.01.2025 I.A. 19341/2022 (BY PLAINTIFF- UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the instant application filed under Order XII Rule 6, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for passing of the judgment and decree on the basis of alleged admission made by the defendants.
2. Mr. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff submits that a perusal of the written statement filed by defendant no.1 would indicate that defendant no.1 has admitted the following facts:
(a) Suit property was owned by the late Shri Virender Kumar (father of plaintiff and defendant no.1).
(b) The plaintiff and defendant no.1 are real sisters
(c) There is no other surviving class-1 legal heir of the late Shri 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 Virender Kumar.
(d) Defendant no.1 has not alleged execution of any other Will.
(e) Late Shri Virender Kumar died in intestate on date 13.02.1989.
3. According to learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff, if the aforesaid aspects are admitted by defendant no.1, there would be no impediment in decreeing Civil Suit in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
4. Learned counsel further submits that under the facts of the present case, the interest of justice would be better served if the Court exercises the power under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, avoiding prolonged litigation amongst the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dinesh Sharma v. Krishna Kainth1.
5. Mr. Puneet Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant no. 1, vehemently opposes the aforesaid submissions and contends that the written statement filed by defendant no. 1 should be construed in whole and merely based on alleged admissions, the suit cannot be decreed.
6. Learned senior counsel further submits that the provisions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC may have to be invoked only in cases where the admission on the part of the defendant is clear, categorical, unambiguous, and the same cannot be applied in the instant case as various triable issues have been raised requiring determination and consideration of this Court. It is the case of defendant no.1 that there were two properties owned by the late Shri Virender Kumar, father of the plaintiff, and defendant no.1. One was commercial property, which is the subject matter of the instant Suit, and another was the residential property. Learned senior 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 counsel, then, contends that the Civil Suit with respect to a Will allegedly executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, namely Late Smt. Geeta Ghai is also pending as Civil Suit No. 926/2017, before the Court of Additional District Judge, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Moreover, according to learned senior counsel, if the prayer of the Civil Suit is construed in the right perspective, the same would indicate that the case of the plaintiff rested not only on the ground of being a class-1 legal heir but also on the basis of a Letter of Administration dated 22.07.2017. He, further, submits that in any case, if the claim of the plaintiff is based on her being a class-I legal heir, both the properties left behind by late Shri Virender Kumar and late Smt Geeta Ghai should have been the subject matter of the instant civil suit. Learned senior counsel appearing for defendant no. 1 has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Express Towers P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Mohan Singh2.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
8. Before considering the rival submissions made by the parties, it is important to examine the scope of provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which reads as under:
"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 1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1142 2 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1213 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
9. The scope of the aforenoted rule is that if there is no dispute between the parties with respect to certain aspects of the case and if there are no pleadings or otherwise such an admission as to make it evident that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed with respect to the same aspect, then, he should be able to obtain such relief on the basis of the admission so made. The primary aim of the rule is to provide a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the admissions made by the opposite party.
10. The aforesaid legal position has been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court concerning Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. In particular, the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India,3 has put to rest the object and scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which reads as under:
"12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled".
We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed..."
11. In Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd4, the Supreme Court observed 3 (2000) 7 SCC 120 4 (2011) 15 SCC 273 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 that:
"11. It is true that a judgment can be given on an "admission"
contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a clear "admission" which can be acted upon.."
12. Similarly, in the recent judgment titled Rajesh Mitra v. Karnani Properties Ltd.5, the Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed that the legal position concerning Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is well-settled and rendered the following findings:
"3.... It is for the courts to see whether any statement in the pleadings or otherwise amounts to an admission of such a nature as to inspire the confidence of the court to pass judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. It will depend upon the content and kind of statement/admission which may vary from case to case. In other words, it would depend upon the totality of facts and circumstances of a particular given case. In the present case, here, it is not a 'clear admission' as is being made out. Moreover, where the question and its answer are both a mixed question of fact and law, as in the present case, a so called 'admission' against the law can never be an "admission" as visualised under Order XII Rule 6. However, more on this later.
Order XII Rule 6 is meant for speedy disposal of the suits in some cases but on the risk of repetition, we would like to caution that unless there is a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and unconditional admission, courts should not exercise their discretion under the Rule because judgment on admissions is without a trial which may even 5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2607 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 preclude a party to challenge the matter on merits in the court of appeal. The provision of law, which is meant for the expeditious disposal of appropriate cases, should therefore be cautiously exercised and it should never come in the way of any defendant denying him the valuable right of contesting the claim..."
13. The aforesaid legal position has also been considered by this Court in the decision cited by learned counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Dinesh Sharma. Paragraph no. 29 of the aforesaid decision, reads as under:
"29. It is a settled law that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is an enabling provision that confers discretion to the Court for ensuring speedy justice on admission to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim. As noted above, such admissions can be in the form of pleadings or otherwise i.e., in the documents, correspondence, etc. placed on record. It can be oral or in writing; the admission can be constructive admission as well as without it being specific or expressive, which can be inferred from vague and evasive denials in the written statement while responding to specific pleas taken in the plaint. I must state that the appellant/defendant has relied upon the judgments which have been referred to above. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down in the said judgments in as much as, (i) a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is not a matter of right, rather is a matter of discretion of the Court; (ii) to constitute a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission, the Trial Court has to see the overall effect of the pleadings and documents. For a judgment on admission to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court has to see as to whether the admission of facts is plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal and go to the root of the matter, which would entitle the other party to succeed; (iii) if the issue raised, involve the mixed question of fact and law, the same has to be adjudicated by way of evidence; (iv) the discretion conferred under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily."
14. Therefore, it is evident from the aforenoted exposition of law that under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court must, at the outset, determine whether the admission of facts is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In case the issues raised involve mixed questions of fact and law, these must be resolved through the presentation and evaluation of evidence. More 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 importantly, the discretion vested in the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC must be exercised in a judicious and non-arbitrary manner, ensuring adherence to the principles of justice and fairness.
15. However, the facts in the instant case indicate that there were two properties in question. One is a commercial property Plot 1, Block B, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58, which is the subject matter of the instant Civil Suit, and the other is a residential property No. M-7, Vikaspuri, New Delhi. It is also undisputed that a Civil Suit is pending between the parties bearing no. 926/2017 titled Smt. Astha Walia vs. Smt. Neeru Mehra, filed by defendant no.1 seeking a declaration of alleged Will dated 25.11.2014, executed by late Smt. Geeta Ghai in respect of the suit property, as null, without jurisdiction, ultra-vires, etc. The said Civil Suit appears to be pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
16. The prayer in the instant Civil Suit reads as under:
"(a) Decree of partition of the entire suit property being No.B-1/1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 by metes and bonds be passed between the plaintiff and defendantNo.1, OR Decree of the partition of the entire suit property No.B-1/1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058 as per the Letter of Administration dated 22.07.2017 issued by the Ld. ADJ-02(South West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1.
(b) Direct the DefendantNo.1, her husband, representatives and agents to hand over to the plaintiff possession of her portion of first, second and half portion of the Third Floor and Roof Rights of the commercial property No.B-1/1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058 as per the decree/Letter of Administration dated 22.07.2017 issued by the Ld. ADJ- 02(South West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
(c) Decree of mesne profit for use and occupation by the defendant No.l of the first floor, second floor and half portions of third floor and roof 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 rights belonging to the plaintiff of suit property No.B-1/1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058 at market rent from 14.03.2015 till realization and interest thereon @12% per annum pendent lite and till realization be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1
(d) Decree of agreed outstanding payment of rent of Rs. 12,62,231/- of the first and second floors of the suit propertyNo.B-1/1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058 from 20.01.2015 till 31.12,2015 be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.2.
(e) Direct the SHO, Janakpuri Police Station, New Delhi, to provide police assistance to the Plaintiff and her husband, if the defendant No.1 prevents their ingress and regress in the commercial property;
(f) Any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case"
17. The written statement filed by defendant no. 1, inter alia, denies the claim made in the Civil Suit. In paragraph no. 5 of the written statement, the following averments have been made:
"5. That the Plaintiff has filed the present Plaint for partition, mesne profits, etc. against the replying Defendant No.l which is based upon false, misleading, motivated, vague, evasive, imaginary and afterthought allegations as well as cook and bull story. It is pertinent to mention here that the Defendant No.l has a legitimate right, title and interest in the entire property No.B-1/1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-11005 8 and the Plaintiff has no independent right, title and interest in the first and second floors of the said property which she is claiming on the basis of an invalid and defective Will as well as Letter of Administration fraudulently obtained by the Plaintiff from the Hon'ble Court of law by concealing/suppressing the material facts. Even this Hon'ble High Court and the Learned Court below never admitted/decided in any of the legal proceedings about the exclusive ownership of the Plaintiff in respect of any portion of property No.B- 1/1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, as proclaimed by the Plaintiff."
18. From the reading of the aforesaid judgments and facts, it is clear that the admissions allegedly made by the defendant lack clarity concerning the plaintiff's exclusive ownership of any portion of the suit property. The plaintiff's claim, which is solely based on her status as the class-I legal heir 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46 of late Shri Virender Kumar and Smt Geeta Ghai, does not, in itself, establish a clear, incontrovertible ownership over the suit property. Moreover, if the plaintiff were to assert ownership based on her status as a class-I legal heir, both properties, commercial and residential, should have been made the subject matter of the instant suit. Under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, for a judgment on admission to be passed, the admission must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous, and must go to the root of the matter, such that the other party is bound to succeed without further evidence.
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.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, however, avers that there does not arise any cause of action with respect to both properties.
21. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the claim of the plaintiff has not been admitted by defendant no.1 clearly and unequivocally, and, therefore, the instant application stands dismissed. CS(OS) 311/2021and I.A. 8258/2021, I.A. 8259/2021, I.A. 8260/2021
22. Let this matter be posted for framing of issues on 25.03.2025.
23. The parties are directed to place on record proposed issues.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 8, 2025 aks/mjo 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 31/01/2025 at 21:52:46