Back
High Court Of Delhi
VIKAS THEATRES AND EXHIBITORS - Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK - Respondent
Interim Application 11509 of 1996
Decided On : 01/07/1998
Held:
Where the defendant himself admits in the written statement taking into con-sideration all the averments in the plaint that the lease shall expire on 9th February, 1997 and that stand was taken by the defendant on 16th April, 1991 when the written statement was filed. How long the Court will allow the defendant to be in possession after clear and unequivocal statement made by defendant on its free will and accord? This Court need not go into such questions which are frivolous in nature and are made only to delay the decision.
Look the plight of a plaintiff. Even in view of the specific statement/averment made in the written statement as early as in 1991 that the lease shall expire in February, 1997, the plaintiff is denied the right of possession now on the ground that the relief for possession was not prayed in the suit or the suit was filed on the basis of an agreement which was not in existance. The defendant cannot be allowed to reprobate and aprobate. This will amount to blowing hot and cold simultaneously. It is all the more alarming to see these kinds of objections coming from bank, public sector undertaking or the Government Department. Least the Court expect from the defendant winch is a Bank is to have some commitment to their own written statement and ought not to have shifted stands in the matter in hand. The whole attitute of the defendant in this regard amounts to dilatory tactics. I find no merit in me arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant that at the time of filing the suit there was no agreement between the parties or that the suit was misconceived or premature. If during the pendency of the suit an admission comes from the defendant the Court can take the same into consideration. Parties cannot be permitted to resile from that admission, otherwise whole system of judicial administration will be a mockery in the conditions prevalent today where the justice system is over burdened.
From the admission made in para I of the written statement, I hold that it was an unequivocal admission by the defendant which entitles the plaintiff to have a decree for possession. In the circumstances, I pass a decree of possession against the defendant and allow the application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6. Let the possession be handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff within four weeks.
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of IA No. 11509/96, application under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint as well as IA No. 1036/97 under Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff. Mr. Sistani, learned counsel appearing for the defendant has contended that the suit is misconceived as well as pre-mature as no agreement as alleged in the plaint was entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff. He has further contended that the suit which has been filed on the basis of agreeme does not exist, the relief of possession sought for cannot be granted by this Court. The next submission of the learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff has not claimed possession in the suit. Lastly Mr. Sistani has contended that no cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. Mr. Sistani has further contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Baljit Kaur Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. 1997 VI AD (Delhi) 937, judgment for possession be not passed by this Court as there are disputed question of law and fact.
( 2 ) THE defendant filed the written statement and in para 1 there is an unequivocal averment made by the defendant that the lease was to expire on 9th February, 1997. Conscious of this fact, the defendant made statement before this Court on 4th February, 1997 that the lease was to expire on 9th February, 1997 and thereafter the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the property in dispute. The matter was adjourned to 6th March, 1997. On 6th March, 1997 I. As 7063/96 and 11509/96 came up for hearing before the Court. It seems that on query, from the Court that in view of the stand of the defendant that the lease was to expire on 9th February, 1997 how can the defendant continue in possession, thereafter the defendant sought time to examine the matter as to how defendant can still continue with the poossession of the premises in dispute.
( 3 ) VIDE order dated 6th March, 1997 the Court on the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant regarding issue No. 4 which was framed on 8th April, 1994, "whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the specific performance of the agreement dated 25th July, 1986" has ordered that the issue was framed regarding the merit of the case but in view of the fact that defendant himself admits in para 1 in its written statement that the lease between the parties expires on 9th February, 1997, said issue has lost its relevance in view of the application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 based on the defendant s admission in paragraph 1 of the written statement. As a matter of fact the objection of the learned counsel for the defendant as contained in IA No. 11509/96 was disposed of by order of the Court and application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 was listed for further orders on 24th March 1997. Thereafter the matter was adjourned and on 21st July, 1997 when the matter was listed in Court, counsel for the defendant sought time to find out as to whether the matter could be settled between the parties. Again on 17th September, 1997 the statement was made by the counsel appearing for the defendant that Mr. Ajit Singh had talked with one of the Directors of the plaintiff company and some more time may be given to finalise the matter between the parties and that is why the matter was adjourned to 30th September, 1997. Again at the request of the counsel for the defendant, the matter was adjourned from 30th September, 1997 to 3rd November, 1997 to settle the matter. In the meanwhile another IA No. 10452/97 and IA No. 10603/97 were filed for adjourning the suit sine die. These I. As were disposed of by the Court by its order dated 26th November, 1997.
( 4 ) IT is in this background taking into consideration the admission of the defendant in paragraph 1 of the written statement, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 has been filed by the plaint
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
