The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's discretion to grant relief under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC based on admissions of fact, and the requirement for a strong defense to succeed in a suit.

Headnote:
CPC - Condonation of Delay - Section 151 of CPC - Order XII Rule 6 of CPC
Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought condonation of 81 days delay in refilling the present Regular First appeal under Section 151 of CPC. The appeal pertained to a civil suit where the respondent alleged non-payment of rent and electricity bills by the appellant. The appellant claimed to have paid an amount for security/mortgage purposes and alleged theft of mortgage documents. The Trial Court passed a judgment and decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, which the appellant contested.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the appellant's defense was not strong enough to succeed in the suit, even after trial. The Trial Court's decision to grant relief to the respondent under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was upheld. The Court also dismissed the appellant's plea for stay of proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in refilling the appeal, non-payment of rent and electricity bills, alleged theft of mortgage documents, and the Trial Court's decision to grant relief under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, which allows the Court to make orders or give judgments based on admissions of fact made in the pleadings or otherwise. The Court found that the appellant's defense did not entitle him to succeed in the suit, even after trial.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the application for stay of proceedings was also dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - CM No. 26908/2021 (by the appellant for condonation of 81 days delay)

This is an application under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking condonation of 81 days delay in the refilling of the present Regular First appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 81 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

RFa 293/2021

1. The present appeal has been filed with the following prayers:

'The appellant/Defendant, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to:

a. Set aside the impugned judgment and decree (Preliminary) passed by the Ld. Court of Shri Vijay Kumar Jha, aDJ-02 (East). Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, dated 04-03-2021 thereby passing preliminary judgment and decree on admission under O 12 Rule 6 of CPC in Civil Suit No. 532/2019 titled as 'Krishna Kainth Vs. Dinesh Sharma'.

B. award Cost of this appeal in favour of the appellant, and

C. Pass such other and further orders in favour of appellant/Defendant which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'

2. It is a case wherein according to facts stated in Civil Suit No. 532/2019 (for short, 'CS No. 532/2019'), the respondent / plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing House No. 37, Second Floor, Block F, Gali No.12, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (for short, 'Suit Property').

3. In the month of November 2016, the appellant / defendant approached the husband of the respondent / plaintiff for the purpose of acquiring the suit property on rent. The respondent / plaintiff agreed to give the said property on lease to the appellant / defendant at a monthly rent of ?9200/- per month exclusive of electricity charges from the month of November 2016.

4. The appellant / defendant initially paid the rent on time, however, after a few months started delaying rent payments, and on being asked about such delay the appellant / defendant did not give any satisfactory answer. The appellant / defendant lastly paid the rent for February 2018 on March 07, 2018. Furthermore, it is alleged that the appellant / defendant never paid the electricity bill raised by BSES, and due to the non-payment of the electricity bills, the concerned authority had disconnected the electricity connection in the suit property.

5. The appellant / defendant filed his written statement in CS No. 532/2019 wherein he stated that the suit property was let out to him and for security / mortgage purposes he has paid an amount of ?5,00,000/- to the respondent / plaintiff. It is further submitted that the respondent / plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant / defendant for a total consideration of ?13,00,000/-. However, the mortgage documents and other documents were stolen from the custody of the appellant / defendant on april 14, 2019, meaning thereby that there were some documents executed by the respondent / plaintiff.

6. It is the contention of Mr. Rajiv Raheja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant / defendant that the Trial Court had listed the matter on arguments, without the filing of a formal application by the respondent / plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC').

7. That apart, it is his contention that the Trial Court erred in passing the judgment / order by failing to appreciate that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the matter and the same cannot be decided without a trial.

8. Mr. Raheja submitted that the Trial Court in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment observed that: 'From the averments in the written statement it is not clear exactly what is the status of the defendant vis-a-vis the suit property under which the defendant came in possession of the suit property on 05/05/2012'. In this regard, he contended that the said observation of the Trial Court clearly depicts that the Trial Court was not even sure what is the status of the appellant / defendant in the suit property and thus