Delhi High Court
Sh. Kishan Chand Khanna vs Sh. Vimal Khanna & Anr. on 6 August, 2009
Author: S.L.Bhayana
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
I.A. No. 15614/2008 in CS (OS) No.1162/2007
Date of Decision: August 6, 2009
SH. KISHAN CHAND KHANNA. ... PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. Alok Aggarwal, Adv.
Versus
SH. VIMAL KHANNA & ANR. .... DEFENDANTS
Through: Mr. Vikramjeet Bannerjee, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or
not?
S.L. BHAYANA, J.
1. This application No. 15614/08 in CS(OS) No.1162/07 has
been moved by the plaintiff under Order12 Rule 6 for passing a
decision on the basis of admission made by the defendant.
2. This is a case of eviction by the plaintiff, from the ground
floor of the suit property bearing No.AE-95, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
and to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises.
Parties' relationship inter se is of father and son. Plaintiff had
disowned Defendant no. 1 around somewhere in February 2005.
3. Plaintiff based his claim for a decision on admitted facts in
the written statement and on the reply to the notice dated
23/06/07.
4. Defendants admit part of plaintiffs claim and deny rest of the
same in their written statement.
pg. 1 of 4
Firstly, it is unequivocally admitted by the defendants that
the plaintiff was the registered owner of the suit property. In the
year 1982, suit property was allotted to the plaintiff by the D.D.A.,
conveyance deed was also issued by the D.D.A. in favour of the
plaintiff.
Secondly it is again admitted by the defendants that in the
year 1979, a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Rajnesh
Textile was open in the shop No. 602 in Katra Ansari, Chandani
Chowk, wherein Smt. Prem Lata (wife of plaintiff) was made
partner of 60% and Kamal K.C. Khanna (elder brother of the
Defendant no.1) was made partner of 40%, Defendant no.1 was
not the partner of the above mentioned partnership firm.
Thirdly a bare perusal of the Order sheet dated
10/12/2007 unfolds the whole matter, ordered in the presence of
the parties. As being relevant to be reproduced below:
"The parties are likely to settle the matter. I am told
that the defendants have shifted their residence
temporarily to Gurgaon but they have not vacated
the premises in question and they are still under
defendant's lock and key. Defendants state that they
be given a month's time either to shift to the rented
premises or their own house."
5. To oppose the present suit the defendants have asserted in
their defence that the main cause of the present suit is the non
Satisfaction of the plaintiff from dowry given by the defendants in
law. Such kind of defence is quite untenable after 20 yrs of
marriage and unfounded.
6. It is well settled that where the admission are equivocal,
unambiguous, clear and when the court finds that offered defence
pg. 2 of 4
is vexatious, false and not tenable, the court may pronounce a
judgment on admission. It is discretion to be exercised by the
court after taking consideration of all facts and circumstances. In
order to appreciate question in hand, it is relevant to take note of
judgment of Apex Court in Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. vs. Union
Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740, wherein it was held that;
"As to the object of the Order XII 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 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."
And by Delhi high court in Raj Gopal (Huf) Vs. State Bank of
India, 79(1999)DLT229
"The purport of Rule 6 of Order 12 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is to enable the party to obtain
speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief
which, according to the admission of the other
party, he is entitled to. The Division Bench of this
court in Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhastan Investment
Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others 66 (1997) DLT 54 has
held that admission on which judgment could be
claimed must be clear and unequivocal one and
that such an admission made in the suit or even for
a part of the claim enables a party to get a decree
passed to the extent of the admission. The aforesaid
proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench
of this Court is well settled that in case of clear and
unequivocal admissions the suit could be decreed
which may be whole or in part for one of the reliefs.
pg. 3 of 4
In the aforesaid case the Division Bench also laid
down the factors which deserve to be taken into
consideration to enable the court to pass a decree
in plaintiff's favor as regards possession in such like
suit which are - (a) existence of relationship of
Lesser and lessee or entry in possession of the suit
property by defendant as a tenant; and (b)
determination of such relation in any of the
contingency, as envisaged in Section 111 of the
Transfer of Property Act. It was also held that an
unequivocal admission of the above two factors
would entitle the plaintiff to a decree for possession
and that such admission need not be made
expressly in the pleadings. Even on constructive
admissions the court can proceed to pass a decree
in plaintiff's favour."
7. In the view of the candid admission made by the defendant
in their pleadings, the order sheet dated 10/12/07 and the
vexatious, stand which stands disposed by their own undertaking,
defence raise the defendants thus needs no investigation.
Balance of Convenience also favour plaintiff.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present
application is allowed and stands disposed of.
CS(OS) No. 1162/2007
Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Insofar as the right of
possession is concerned, defendants are given one month's time,
to give vacant and peaceful possession of the ground floor of the
suit property to the plaintiff.
S.L. BHAYANA, J.
August 6, 2009
pg. 4 of 4
