Jai Mata Builders vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5691 Del

*           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    CM(M) 638/2012 & CM Nos. 9514-15/2012

                                            Date of Decision: 20.09.2012

JAI MATA BUILDERS                                   .....Petitioner
                           Through:      Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Adv.

                                  Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.                            ...... Respondent
                Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

This petition is directed against the order dated 27.04.2012

whereby application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the

petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was dismissed.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession, mesne profits

and recovery against the respondent/defendant stating himself to be the

owner of premises measuring 3594 square feet in the building at C-1/3,

Laxmi Tower, Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi, which was orally let

out to the respondent/defendant with effect from 06.11.1991 and by the

renewed oral lease deed 06.11.1994. The application under Order 12

Rule 6 CPC was filed seeking passing of judgment and decree based

on the admissions allegedly made by the respondent/defendant in the

written statement. In the application it is averred that the

respondent/defendant has admitted the relationship as also the receipt

of notice and thus, the petitioner was entitled to judgment and decree

on its admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on

perusal of the written statement, it is seen that the

respondent/defendant has raised certain triable issues and the

admissions which are alleged to have been made by it, are not clear

and unequivocal, warranting straight passing of judgment and decree in

favour of the petitioner. In the written statement, the respondent has

averred the suit to be barred under Section 69 of Partnership Act as

also the suit being not maintainable for want of requisite court fee. It

was also averred that the lease was not oral, but written and that no

notice, as alleged, was given by the petitioner under Transfer of

Property Act. Further, it was averred that the plaintiff had sold 2671

square feet of the total area of 3594 sq.ft. There is also a plea raised

with regard to the rent being inclusive of maintenance charges. From

the averments, as set out by the respondent in the WS, as noted above,

it cannot be said that the respondent/defendant had made unambiguous

and unequivocal admissions. That being so, the application under

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed

by the learned ADJ. There being no infirmity or illegality in the

impugned order, the petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby

dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 awanish