Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs Parveen Kumar Garg & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1454 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No. 57/2011
%                                                 11th March, 2011

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL                                 ...... Appellant
                   Through:           Mr. Deepak Jain with
                                      Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Advocates
                          VERSUS


PARVEEN KUMAR GARG & ANR.                               ...... Respondents
                  Through:            Mr. Dinesh K. Gupta with
                                      Mr. Vikas Mishra,Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    1.   Whether the 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?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

              Learned counsel for the respondents, with a strong sense of

fairness, has conceded that the impugned judgment and decree which

decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on so called unambiguous

admissions without any evidence in this case is based on clearly an illegal,

erroneous view because, though, the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 is

correct in his stand before the Trial Court and his suit for possession ought

to have been decreed, however, this is an issue which can only be decided

after trial inasmuch as the appellant/defendant has taken up the case that

the property has been purchased out of a business in which the

appellant/defendant had a share. I am not commenting one way or the

other upon the respective stands taken by the parties in the Trial Court,
RFA No. 57/2011                                                     Page 1 of 2
 however, all these are disputed questions of facts and these disputed

questions of facts could not have been decided by the impugned

judgment and decree on the basis of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC which only

applies when admitted facts justify the grant of a decree.      Accordingly,

with the consent of the parties, impugned judgment and decree is set

aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 14.4.2011,

the date already fixed. The Trial Court will now proceed with the suit in

accordance with law after framing of issues if necessary and thereafter

allowing parties to lead evidence. Nothing contained in today's order and

in the impugned judgment will in any manner prejudice either of the

parties at the stage of the trial and the final arguments in the case.


            The appeal is accordingly disposed of.




MARCH 11, 2011                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak