Sushila Gopalan & Ors vs Land And Development Office & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1918 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 20.03.2012

+                    CM(M) 338/2012 & CM Nos. 5098-99/2012


SUSHILA GOPALAN & ORS                                   ..... Petitioners
                 Through               Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh, Adv.

                     versus


LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE & ORS         ..... Respondents
                Through  Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Adv.



      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Order impugned is dated 29.11.2011 whereby the application

filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking a judgment on

admission had been dismissed.

2. Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff

seeking a mandatory injunction; there are five defendants who have

been arrayed; the prayer made in the suit is to the effect that a decree of

mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against

defendant No. 1 (L& DO) to quash the mutation letter dated 07.07.2005

whereby the property stands mutated in the name of L & DO by Sheela

Chawla in terms of the Wills dated 15.03.1999 and 06.11.2003; further

prayer is to restrain the defendants from transferring the aforenoted

property in the name of any third party except to the plaintiff.

3. Written statement had been filed. Attention has been drawn to the

averments made in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 (L&

DO); para 13 has been highlighted; submission being that there are

certain admissions which have been made by the L & DO which qualify

for a judgment on admission in terms of provisions under Order XII

Rule 6 of the Code. The averments in para 13 of the written statement of

defendant No. 1 are to the effect that the property in question has been

substituted in the name of Raj Kumar Chawla vide letter dated

07.07.2005 on the basis of an affidavit, death certificate and indemnity

bond furnished by the answering defendant; attention has also been

drawn to the aforenoted documents. The contention of the petitioner

nowhere fit into the parameters of a judgment on admission which is the

provision contained in Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. In fact the

averments made in the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code

itself states that the denial made by the defendant in the written

statement are no denial in the eyes of the law and in fact amounts to an

admission. The averments made in this application nowhere fit into the

parameters of the aforenoted provisions and this has been pointed out to

the learned counsel for the petitioner time and again but he continues to

make vehement submission. Reliance by the learned counsel for the

petitioner upon the judgment reported in 186 (2012) DLT 129 Rakesh

Basra Vs. Satsagar Gupta and (2000) 5 Scale 449 Uttam Singh Duggal

& Company Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India & others is misplaced; there is

no doubt that if there is an unequivocal, clear and unambiguous

admission, the applicant is entitled to a decree straightway on an

admission; the purpose being to cut-short the litigation; there is no such

admission whatsoever. The impugned judgment had noted all these facts

in the correct perspective. This petition being an abuse of the process of

the Court and wastage of its precious time, is dismissed with costs of

`10,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 20, 2012/A