C.R.P. 78/2021 Page 1 of 8

$~23

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 12 May, 2022

+

C.R.P. 78/2021

MEENAKSHI MANNA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

N.K.

Kantawala

and

Mr.Satyender Chahar, Advs.

versus

SMT SURITI MANNA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Pranaynath Jha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL)

1.

This revision is directed against an order dated 31 July 2019 passed

by the Trial Judge rejecting an application purporting to be under Order XV

Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [the Code]. The order emanates

from a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profit for use and occupation

as instituted by the plaintiff petitioner against the respondents. From the

record, it transpires that after the filling of a written statement, the

petitioners filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. That

application came to be dismissed by the Trial Judge by an order of 04 July

2019. Although the aforesaid order was initially assailed by filling a revision

petition before this Court, the same was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn.

2.

It becomes pertinent to note that while dismissing the application

under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, the Trial Judge found that the execution

2022:DHC:1877

C.R.P. 78/2021 Page 2 of 8

of the relinquishment deed was questioned by the defendants. It was further

noted that the validity of the Will dated 26 October 1994 which was an

unregistered instrument was also assailed. Based on the aforesaid facts, the

Trial Judge came to conclude that a reading of the written statement failed to

establish an unambiguous or clear admission having been made by the

defendant respondent warranting a judgment on admission being rendered.

Post the dismissal of the aforesaid application, the petitioner filed yet

another application, this time styling it to be under Order XV Rule 1 of the

Code.

3.

The Trial Judge while dismissing the aforesaid application has made

the following observations:-

―9.

For the sake of convenience I am quoting Order 12 Rule 6 CPC

and Order 15 Rule 1 CPC:

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC–Where admissions of fact have been

made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in

writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the

application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting

for the determination of any other question between the parties,

make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having

regard to such admissions.

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC - Where at the first hearing of a suit it

appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or

of fact, the Court at once pronounce judgment.

9.1 Order 12 Rule 6 CPC necessarily pre suppose a

Judgment on the basis of admission however the Court for the

said purposes can decipher/decode the pleading and can thrash

out the Contents of the defence to consider the case made

out by the defendants particularly the legal validity of the

defence raised and thereafter conclude whether any admission has

been made or not.

The powers U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC are not merely confined to the

bare pleadings itself but the Court is duly empowered to scan

the pleadings and thereafter come to a definite conclusion as to

the need for setting the case for trial. In this regard the

observations made in paragraph no. 10 in the case of A.N.Kaul

v/s Neerja kaul & Anr. (supra) relied upon by the plaintiff are

2022:DHC:1877

C.R.P. 78/2021