CS(OS)1660/2001 Page 1 of 8

$~5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: January 20, 2015

+

CS(OS) 1660/2001

MANU KUMAR AND ANR.

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. M. S. Vinaik, Advocate

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY C+

..... Defendant

Through:

Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv. for d-2 to 4, 6 & 7

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)

OA No.313/2014

1.

This appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order dated 01.12.2014 passed

by the Joint Registrar.

2.

The background facts which lead to filing of the appeal are that

pursuant to the directions of the Joint Registrar the defendant No.1/appellant

DDA filed an affidavit of Mr. S. K. Jain containing admission/denial of

documents on 08.01.2013.

3.

On 26.07.2013, a statement was made before the Joint Registrar by the

said Mr. S. K. Jain that certain documents of the plaintiffs have been admitted

without comparing the same with the documents on record. Time was sought

to file a fresh affidavit of admission/denial. Liberty was granted to file a fresh

affidavit by the Joint Registrar.

4.

On 30.07.2013 the order of the Joint Registrar notes that a fresh

2015:DHC:612

CS(OS)1660/2001 Page 2 of 8

affidavit of admission/denial as directed on 26.07.2013 has been handed over

across the Board and the same is taken on record. As the plaintiffs objected to

the fresh affidavit the matter was placed before the Court.

5.

On 12.08.2013 the Court noted that the fresh affidavit filed is not on

record and the matter was renotifed. Thereafter the Joint Registrar passed the

impugned order dated 01.12.2014 whereby the Joint Registrar held that it is not

permissible to withdraw admissions by defendant No.1 made in proceedings

before the court and withdrawal of such admissions in the name of a mistake

and that too without permission of the Court was unwarranted. The Court

directed that the first affidavit dated 08.01.2013 filed by defendant No.1 with

respect to admission/denial of documents be considered as the relevant

affidavit of admission/denial.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.1 submits that

the previous orders of the Joint Registrar dated 26.07.2013 and of the Court

dated 12.08.2013, clearly shows that this Court has already permitted the

appellant to file a fresh affidavit of admission/denial and that there can be no

reason for the Joint Registrar now to pass the impugned order dated

01.12.2014 directing that the admission/denial be done based on the first

affidavit dated 08.01.2013. This affidavit it is submitted has already been

permitted to be withdrawn.

7.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff on the other hand has

opposed the appeal pointing out that admission/denial once done cannot be

permitted to be withdrawn. Defendant No.1 having admitted the documents

cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission. It is further submitted that

DDA in a mindless and whimsical manner are harassing the plaintiffs who are

2015:DHC:612

CS(OS)1660/2001 Page 3 of 8

bonafide purchasers of the suit property at the behest of builder mafia, who

are constantly forging documents to claim title. It is urged that the suit

property pertains to property No.D-153, Saket, New Delhi, which was owned

by the father of the plaintiffs. The said property is a vacant piece of land

because of which builders, property agents and mafia are trying to usurp the

property by forging the Will of the father of the plaintiffs.

8.

„Admission‟ is defined under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 as follows:-

“17. Admission defined. – An