Admissions in civil suits must be clear and unequivocal; statements from unrelated criminal proceedings do not satisfy this standard for summary judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

ORDER :

1. The present civil revision petition has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the outset, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in filing the instant revision petition.

2. It is submitted that the delay occurred on account of a communication lapse, as the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the pending revision petition No.57/2024, arising out of the earlier order dated 16.11.2023, also encompassed the subsequent order dated 14.08.2024 passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Owing to this misunderstanding, the present revision petition could not be filed within the prescribed limitation period.

3. Having considered the contents of the application and the reasons furnished therein, and being satisfied that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the aforementioned circumstances, the application is allowed. The delay of 76 days in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, the revision petition is treated as having been filed within limitation.

5. Now, turning to the merits of the matter, this revision petition challenges the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Original Suit No. 48/2012 (Bhagwati Prasad Bang vs. Shiv Kanya & Ors.), whereby the petitioner’s application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC has been rejected.

6. The facts leading to the present revision petition, in brief, are that the respondent no. 1–plaintiff, Bhagwati Prasad Bang, instituted a civil suit for specific performance of a compromise agreement and permanent injunction against the petitioner company, seeking a direction to execute a sale deed in his favour for 1600 square yards of land and also seeking injunction against the petitioner. The case of the plaintiff was founded upon an alleged compromise agreement purportedly executed by one Shri Ramnarayan Dhoot, who was claimed to have acted as the authorized agent and power of attorney holder of the petitioner company. It was averred that Shri Dhoot had agreed on behalf of the petitioner to execute the sale deed and to pay Rs. 3 crores to the plaintiff, and in this regard, cheques were issued as security, out of which one cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs was allegedly encashed. The plaintiff claimed that despite repeated requests and reminders, the sale deed was not executed, and after the death of Shri Dhoot, the petitioner company declined to honour the alleged compromise. The petitioner, in its written statement and counterclaim, denied execution of any such compromise or agreement, asserting that Ramnarayan Dhoot was neither a director nor authorized by any board resolution or power of attorney of the company, and that the plaint was based on vague, fabricated assertions creating an illusion of cause of action. The petitioner also claimed that the plaintiff, being a chartered accountant, had obtained the cheques fraudulently and was attempting to misuse them to extract money. Consequently, the petitioner sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action and also filed a counterclaim for refund of Rs. 1.40 crores.

7. While the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was pending, the petitioner filed another application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on the basis of alleged clear admissions made by the plaintiff in separate proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against respondent no. 4, Kishan Ch