Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6812 of 2026 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22100 of 2025]
Decided On : 29-04-2026
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIII-A Rule 4 – Summary Judgment – Effectiveness of private arbitration, once seen as a solace cannot be panacea for all disputes – An effective justice system must enable a Judge to adjudicate the issue by ascertaining necessary facts and applying appropriate legal principle in a fair and effective manner – However, such adjudicatory processes cannot be meaningful unless they are accessible – Principle of proportionality requires that procedural mechanisms be tailored to nature, complexity and stakes of litigation; while ensuring optimal use of judicial time and resources – In this context, summary judgment assumes significance as an important procedural tool – It advances access to justice by providing a swift and cost-effective alternative to a full-fledged trial, especially in cases where prolonged adjudication would serve no real purpose – Summary judgment under Order XIII-A cannot be upon inquisition of Court – It is mandatory to serve defendant – Consequences of ‘rejection of plaint’/’return of plaint’ and ‘summary judgment’ are different – Res judicata operates only on latter. (Paras 35, 36, 48 and 49)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIII-A Rule 3 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Summary Judgment – Recovery suit – Money paid towards purchase of plot – Where Court finds that a claim or defence is so weak that it prima-facie discloses no reasonable prospect of success, it is neither necessary nor desirable to subject the parties to rigours of a full-fledged trial – Power of summary judgment is to be exercised where it is just and expedient to do so, enabling parties to know their legal position without being compelled to endure a trial – Use of summary judgment will not be against interest of justice if it will lead to a fair and just result – In present case, acquisition stood rendered void-ab-initio due to failure of DDA to pay compensation to original landowners, resulting in lapse under Section 24(2) of Fair Compensation Act, 2013 – Appellant is able to discharge his burden in showing a real prospect of success – There is nothing in law or fact to show that possession is sine qua non for refund – Even after filing suit, DDA continued to litigate Review Petition, followed by Curative Petition before this Court – Suit for refund filed by appellant cannot be said to be barred by limitation – Suit decreed alongwith 7.5% interest. (Paras 51, 58, 61, 62, 66, 76, 78, 81, 82 and 83)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by High Court of Delhi in I.A. No. 6914 of 2022 in CS (COMM) No. 582 of 2021, whereby application filed by appellant seeking summary judgment under Rule 4 of Order XIII-A of CPC came to be dismissed. The issue at hand is “whether Appellant herein is entitled for a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of CPC, in present facts and circumstances?”
Findings of Court:
High Court seems to have misdirected itself in finding a triable issue on fact without adjudicating relevancy of said issue to case at hand. Even assuming that factum of physical possession is contentious, High Court failed to examine as to how such fact affects issue of refund.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In between the twin sayings of ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ and ‘justice hurried is justice buried’, lies a golden mean which this Court must adopt to resolve the present case. It is in this balanced perspective that the provisions of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) fall to be interpreted and applied.
3. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (hereinafter “High Court”) in I.A. No. 6914 of 2022 in CS (COMM) No. 582 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking summary judgment under Rule 4 of Order XIII-A of the CPC came to be dismissed.
4. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that a public notice was issued on 21.03.2007, by the Respondent-Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter “DDA”) announcing a public auction for various freehold commercial plots, including Plot No. 13 at the Non-hierarchical Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi (hereinafter “Subject Plot”), whose land-use was earmarked as “Multi-level Parking/Commercial (No Multiplex).”
5. The appellant herein, being interested in acquiring the Subject Plot, submitted its bid in respect thereof on 23.03.2007, offering the amount of Bid/Lease Premium being Rs. 164,91,00,000/- (INR One hundred and sixty-four crores ninety-one lakhs only) in respect of the same. The appellant also deposited 25% (twenty-five percent) of the reserve price of the Subject Plot, i.e. a sum of Rs. 42,25,00,000/- (INR Forty-two crores twenty-five lakhs only) vide Demand Draft with the respondent towards earnest money in respect of its bid, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the auction.
6. The appellant was the highest bidder for the Subject Plot, and the DDA, by its letter dated 07.06.2007, informed the appellant that its bid has been accepted, and called upon to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 122,66,00,045/- (INR One hundred and twenty-two crores sixty-six lakhs and forty-five only), including the documentation charges, within a period of 90 (ninety) days.
7. On 12.07.2007, the appellant paid the balance sum of Rs. 122,66,00,045/- in respect of the Subject Plot, followed by payment of Rs. 9,89,46,025/- (INR Nine crores eighty-nine lakhs forty-six thousand twenty-five only) towards the Stamp Duty and Transfer Duty in respect of execution of the Conveyance Deed on 03.12.2007. In this light, DDA called upon the appellant to take possession of the Subject Plot on or before 15.01.2008.
8. Upon due completion of all necessary pre-requisites by the appellant, including the payment of the entire sale consideration, Stamp Duty and Transfer Duty; DDA executed the Conveyance Deed dated 06.02.2008 in favour of the appellant for the Subject Plot on a free-hold basis. The said Conveyance Deed was duly registered on 07.03.2008 at the office of the Sub-Registrar-VII, Delhi having Registration No. 4,300 in Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 2,886 at pages 83 to 86.
9. From the year 2008 onwards, pursuant to the execution of the Conveyance Deed in respect of the Subject Plot in its favour, the appellant, between assessment years of 2008-09 to 2017-18, also made payments of a sum amounting to Rs. 24,00,036/- (INR Twenty-four lakhs thirty-six only) towards property tax in respect of the Subject Plot.
10. In the year 2015, unknown to the appellant herein, one Simla Devi, claiming to be the erstwhile owner of the Subject Plot before acquisition of the land by the DDA on behalf of the State, had filed a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 5688 of 2015 before the High Court, seeking a declaration that the acquisition of land (hereinafter “Subject Land”) had lapsed on account of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter “Fair Compensation Act, 2013”).
11. The High Court, vide judgment dated 15.11.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 5688
Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of CPC cannot be upon inquisition of Court – It is mandatory to serve defendant – Consequences of ‘rejection of plaint’/’return of plaint’ and ‘summary judgment’ a....
Summary judgment is intended for commercial disputes where a party has no real prospect of success and no compelling reason exists for a full trial. Courts should decide such matters expeditiously wh....
The amended Order XIII-A of The Civil Procedure Code applies to suits for Summary Judgment transferred to the Commercial Division, and the plaintiff must provide clear and unequivocal evidence to sup....
The court ruled that summary judgment is inappropriate when the plaintiff must prove the diligence of prior proceedings, requiring oral evidence, thus allowing the defendant's defenses to be consider....
The 30-day period to file a reply under Order XIII-A of CPC is directory, allowing for condonation of delay subject to sufficient cause and costs.
A suit originally filed under summary procedure cannot later allow summary judgment under a different procedural order.
Summary judgment is not appropriate in cases with substantial factual disputes requiring evidentiary hearing; admissions in documents alone do not justify bypassing trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
