Delhi High Court
Union Bank Of India vs Parampreet Singh Anand & Ors on 26 August, 2025
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26.08.2025
+ RFA(COMM) 342/2024 & CM APPL. 48030/2024 (Stay)
UNION BANK OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Samavendra Kumar, Mr.
Sandeep Soni, Mr. Vishv
Jaiswal, Ms. Priyanka Singh
and Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh,
Advocates.
versus
PARAMPREET SINGH ANAND
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarthak Ahuja, Ms. Sabika
Ahmad and Mr. Akash
Chandna, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The present appeal is under Section 13 of the Commercial Court
Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII and Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 19081 against the Order dated 15.05.20242 passed by the
learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-12, District New Delhi,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CS (COMM) No. 1547/2022.
2. The Appellant herein/Defendant therein assails the correctness
of the impugned Order passed by the learned Commercial Court
CPC
Impugned Order
while summarily decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent at
the agreed rate between parties with effect from 01.03.2021 to
22.03.2023, along with simple interest thereupon @ 8% p.a.
pendente-lite and future till its realization in favour of the
Respondents herein/Plaintiffs therein.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the facts germane, albeit briefly, are required to be noticed.
a. The Respondents instituted a suit for possession and recovery of
arrears of rent against the Appellant before the Trial Court. The
suit property was taken on lease by the Appellant from the
Respondents on 17.02.2011 at monthly rent of Rs. 3,75,036/-
for a period of ten years. The rent was to be revised from time
to time. Subsequently, the Andhra Bank was merged with the
Appellant in 2020.
b. There was a decision made by the Appellant to vacate the
premises upon the merger of Andhra Bank (original Bank) with
the Appellant-Union Bank of India. It is the case of the
Appellant that possession of the premises was handed over to
the Respondents on 28.02.2021 after paying arrears of rent till
the said date. Appellant, while filing the written statement,
positively asserted that the possession of tenanted premises was
handed over to the Respondents on 28.02.2021.
c. The learned Commercial Court, however, held that the suit
could be decreed as the Appellant has no real prospect of
successfully defending the claim. It was held that the Appellant
has failed to show as to when the possession as alleged was
handed over by them to the Respondent. The Court also held
that the Appellant failed to respond the notice sent by the
Respondents on 02.12.2021.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant had specifically averred in the written statement that the
possession of the premises was handed over to the Respondents on
28.02.2021, but the Court failed to grant opportunity to the Appellant
to prove that fact. He further submits that the stand taken in the
written statement was categoric and amounted to denial of the claim.
He submitted that such suit could not be decreed without granting
opportunity of leading evidence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents
submits that the Appellant failed to produce any document along with
the written statement to prove delivery of possession. Hence, the
Court had correctly decreed the suit.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
6. Learned counsel for both parties were heard at length, and the
paper book along with the record was duly perused.
7. It is not necessary for the party to incorporate evidence in its
pleadings under Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, which requires that the
evidence need not be pleaded and the pleadings are confined to the
relevant facts only.
8. In such circumstances, opportunity to lead evidence was
required to be granted by the Court, particularly in view of specific
averments made in the written statement. It was not a case where the
Appellant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
9. It is evident that the Appellant, a nationalised bank, in its
written statement referred to and relied on the decision taken by the
bank on 19.11.2020, wherein the concerned branch was informed that
in view of Government's Scheme and Gazette notification, the Andhra
Bank was merged with the Appellant, and consequently, its branch at
the tenanted premises was closed. Thereafter, the Appellant resolved
to surrender the tenanted premises with effect from 28.02.2021.
10. Having regard to the above, it was not appropriate for the Court
to decree the suit in a summary manner without granting opportunity
to the parties to lead evidence.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment
dated 15.05.2024 is set aside, while remitting the matter back to the
Commercial Court for adjudication afresh, after granting opportunity
to the parties to lead their respective evidence.
12. The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to
appear before the learned Commercial Court on 08.09.2025.
13. Needless to observe, the Commercial Court will proceed to
decide the case uninfluenced by the observations made in the
impugned Order which has been set aside as well as by the
observations of this Court.
14. The present appeal, along with pending application(s), if any,
stands disposed of, in the above terms.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 26, 2025/nd/rn/ds
