Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Smt Neeru Mehra vs Smt Astha Ghai Walia & Anr on 8 January, 2025 cites

Express Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Mohan Singh And Ors. on 24 July, 2014

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.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Sh. Dinesh Sharma vs Mrs. Krishna Kainth on 6 September, 2021

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.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - V K Rao - Full Document

Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra vs Karnani Properties Limited on 11 September, 2023

"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."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1