Recently, the Supreme Court has upheld an eviction decree passed against a caretaker occupying a disputed property in Delhi, reiterating that clear admissions made during criminal proceedings can be relied upon by civil courts for passing a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to interfere with concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and Delhi High Court, all of which had held that the occupant was merely a caretaker/licensee and had no ownership rights over the suit property. The dispute arose from a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction over a plot situated at Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi. The plaintiffs asserted ownership on the basis of property documents and claimed that the defendant had been allowed to stay on the property only as a caretaker.
The Trial Court had decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC after relying upon admissions made by the defendant in an earlier criminal complaint and FIR, wherein he acknowledged the ownership of the plaintiffs and admitted his status as a caretaker/chowkidar.
Affirming the approach adopted by the courts below, the Supreme Court observed that “A decree can be passed under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC on the basis of an admission, whether it is contained in the pleadings or elsewhere. Such an admission may be in writing or may even be oral. No particular form of admission is necessary.”
The Court further emphasized that the object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to ensure speedy justice wherever there exists a clear and unequivocal admission entitling a party to relief. Relying on the precedent in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, the Bench noted that courts should not narrowly interpret the provision when admissions are apparent on record.
Finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the three courts below, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed that the execution proceedings continue expeditiously in accordance with law.
Case Title: Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 19868/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR; Mr. Mohd. Hasibuddin, Adv.; Mr. Surya Pratap, Adv.; Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta, Adv.; Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv.; Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR; Mr. Abhishek Raj, Adv.; Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
