Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHA MENON, J.
M/s BDR Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Narsingh Shah alias Narsingh Sah – Respondent
C.M. (M) Nos. 412, 413, 415, 416, 417 of 2020, C.M. Applications Nos. 18635, 18756, 18758, 18794 of 2020, 3384 of 2021
Decided On : 03-08-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI, XV-A and XII Rule 6 and 17 - “Stage of the proceedings” and not “hearing” - Application for amendment - Whether order was a “judgment” or not and was only an “interlocutory/intermediate” order - Whether application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC could have been filed after learned Trial Court had heard arguments on application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, it would be useful to understand what is a “judgment” and what is an “order - Petitions have been filed by Developers Private Limited- petitioner challenging orders passed in five suits that were filed by petitioner/plaintiff against various persons, in said suits - Petitioner/plaintiff seeks setting aside of said orders primarily on ground that cases had been fixed for passing orders on applications that petitioner/plaintiff had filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and under Order XV-A of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
“Judgment” and “order” do not mean same thing is obvious from fact that CPC itself defines them separately. “Judgment” has been defined under Section 2(9) of CPC - an “order” is something that does not result in a decree or a final conclusion of a matter, though a “judgment” may include an “order.” The term “judgment” indicates a judicial decision given on merits of disputes brought before the Court. Thus, there are, broadly speaking, two kinds of “orders” one, that is in nature of a final order and the other not determining main issue with any finality - Court that since purpose of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party, at any stage, to alter or amend their pleadings in such manner as are necessary for purpose of determining real questions/controversies between the parties, subject to satisfying court of due diligence and in view of fact that power of court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and could result in final disposal of matter, permanently debarring defendant from exercising his right to defend such a suit, application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be considered on merits before power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is exercised by Trial Courts.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHA MENON, J.
1. These five petitions have been filed by M/s. BDR Developers Private Limited (“the petitioner” for short) challenging the orders dated 4th August, 2020, passed in five suits that were filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against various persons, named as defendants in the said suits. Vide the said orders dated 4th August, 2020, separately passed in each of the suits, the learned Trial Court had listed the cases for arguments on the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC” for short). The petitioner/plaintiff seeks the setting aside of the said orders primarily on the ground that the cases had been fixed on 4th August, 2020 for passing orders on the applications that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and under Order XV-A of CPC, however, the learned Trial Court adjourned the matter for arguments to be heard on the application filed by the respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Since the issues involved are the same in all these petitions, they are being disposed of vide this common order.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be the landlord of premises No. F-419 admeasuring 200 square yards, part of Khasra No. 814; No. F-15, ad-measuring 244 Sq. yds. part of Khasra No. 811, 813/2 and 814; No. P- 80B, ad-measuring 163 Sq. Yds. part of Khasra No. 812/2; No. A-25, admeasuring 396 Sq. Yds. (92+304) and 342 Sq. Yds. (196+146) and No. 464, ad-measuring 283 Sq. Yds. part of Khasra No. 782, all situated at Molarband, Post Office, Badarpur Road, New Delhi. By means of the respective Registered Lease Deeds dated 13th June, 2018 and 11th June, 2018, the petitioner/plaintiff claimed that it had inducted the respondents/defendants as tenants in the said properties at a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-. The civil suits were filed on 25th May, 2019 being CS DJ/471/2019, CS DJ/467/2019, CS DJ/474/2019, CS DJ/469/2019 and CS DJ/473/2019 respectively, for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits against the respondents/defendants on the ground that they had defaulted in paying the monthly rent for more than two months consecutively. Written statements had been filed in all the suits by the respondents/defendants and thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed applications under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking judgment on admissions, pointing out that the respondents/defendants had admitted the execution of the respective Registered Lease Deeds dated 13th June, 2018 and 11th June, 2018.
3. Mr. Akhil Sachar, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that extensive arguments were heard on this application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and the learned Trial Court adjourned the matter for orders, firstly to 1st August, 2020 and thereafter, to 4th August, 2020. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents/defendants took several adjournments on the plea of ill health of their counsel and thereafter, changed the counsel twice. It was on 28th July, 2020, that the new counsel for the respondents/defendants filed written arguments and therefore, the learned Trial Court put the case ‘for orders’ on 1st August, 2020, on which date, due to a Court holiday, the matter was then taken up on 4th August, 2020. On 1st August, 2020, the new counsel engaged by the respondents/defendants sent an application requesting the court to adjourn the passing of the orders under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, till the disposal of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which was also being filed along with certain documents. The learned Trial Court mentioned this fact of the filing of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and passed the impugned order adjourning the matter for hearing on the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the learned Trial Court, despite his objections, was unwilling to dispose of the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and directed the
Practice and Procedure - No error in decision of Trial Court to take up application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for hearing and disposal despite having already heard parties on application under Or....
For a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and unconditional; evasive denials do not qualify.
A clear and unambiguous admission by a party can justify a summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
A decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 is not justified where no clear admission exists, especially when the validity of the tenancy agreement is contested.
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide amendments and a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigations while considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
(1) Res Judicata – Whether suit is barred by any law must be determined from statements in plaint and it is not open to decide issue on the basis of any other material including written statement in ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to pass a preliminary decree based on admissions and the requirement for parties to disclose the pendency of any appeal....
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
