Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

it is palpably clear that the Defendant has deliberately made vague pleadings in order to mislead the Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the Defendant had relied on a decision of my learned brother J.B. Goel, J. in Kanta Manocha Vs. M/s. Hindustan Paper Corpn., 1998 V AD (Delhi) 486 and M/s. Simla Wholesale Mart., Vs. M/s. Baishnodas Kishori Lal Bhalla and others, AIR 1997 HP 29. Having perused these decision I am of the view that they have no application to the facts of the present case.

7. Having considered the submissions made before me I am satisfied that, on a complete and meaningful reading of the Written Statement, there is an admission of the receipt of the notice to quit. There is a further admission as to its legality because no triable issues have been raised in the challenge thereto. Merely because a palpably false case has been set up, in the present circumstances relating to the waiver of the notice, it would not lead to the consequence that a judgment should not be passed. Failure to plead facts which constitute a valid defense, must be read as admissions made as contemplated by Rule VI of Order 12. To hold otherwise would be an emasculation of judicial powers to dispense complete justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.