Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed If Defence Set Up By Party Is So Weak That It Is Impossible To Succeed: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently affirmed a judgment on admission, passed by the court below in exercise of its discretionary powers under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, on the ground that the defence set up was such as to make it impossible for the party to succeed.

In this regard, Justice V Kameswar Rao observed,

"Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can also be invoked when the objections raised against rendering a judgment are such, which goes to the root of the matter or whether the objections are inconsequential, making it impossible for the party to succeed, even if entertained."

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 in a Civil Suit concerning a suit property.

It was the argument of the appellant 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. It was also argued that the Trial Court erred in passing the judgment by failing to appreciate that there were disputed questions of facts involved in the matter and the same could not have been decided without a trial.

It was submitted by the appellant that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant defendant had clearly denied and refuted the relation of landlord and tenant, as alleged by the respondent plaintiff. Thus, there was no admission on the basis of which judgment could have been passed.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent-plaintiff that it was a case wherein the tenant after becoming dishonest, stopped paying rent and on the basis of a false deal or mortgage or agreement to sell and by making false submissions regarding payments made in cash tries to gain time to stay in the property for as long as possible without paying any rent and exit at last by enjoying the property without paying rent.

It was also stated that it had been observed by the High Court in several cases that the tenants who illegally continue to occupy the tenanted premises by raising frivolous defences should be appropriately burdened with penal costs.

At the outset, the High Court observed that the appellant / defendant in his written statement has clearly stated that the respondent / plaintiff had let out the property to him.

It further noted that the Appellant had claimed making several payments to the respondent- plaintiff in pursuance of mortgage, agreement to sell. However, no evidence of such payments was produced in Court.

"Hence, the defence that has been put forth by the appellant / defendant is not such a strong defence that will enable him to succeed in the suit, even after the matter is put on trial," it remarked.

The Court observed that it is a settled law that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is not a matter of right. It is an enabling provision that confers discretion to the Court for ensuring speedy justice on admission to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim.

"As noted above, such admissions can be in the form of pleadings or otherwise i.e., in the documents, correspondence, etc. placed on record. It can be oral or in writing; the admission can be constructive admission as well as without it being specific or expressive, which can be inferred from vague and evasive denials in the written statement while responding to specific pleas taken in the plaint," the Court observed.

It stated that for a judgment on admission to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court has to see as to whether the admission of facts is plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal and go to the root of the matter, which would entitle the other party to succeed; (iii) if the issue raised, involve the mixed question of fact and law, the same has to be adjudicated by way of evidence; (iv) the discretion conferred under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

The Court was of the view that the Trial Court primarily granted the relief in favour of the respondent plaintiff only on a finding that in the absence of any registered document in favour of the appellant defendant, the legal status of the appellant in the suit property, at best was that of a tenant or at least as that of a licensee and in the absence of any registered document in favour of the appellant, the jural relationship between the parties, having been terminated on service of summons on the suit, the appellant had no right to keep the possession of the suit property.

The Court observed that even assuming that a mortgage was created or agreement to sell was entered, the same having not been registered, no right would accrue in favour of the appellant defendant to justify the possession of the suit property and that the status of the appellant shall remain as that of a tenant.

"Hence, the defence that has been put forth by the appellant / defendant is not such a strong defence that will enable him to succeed in the suit, even after the matter is put on trial," the Court observed.

The Court added that the Trial Court has the power to consider the pleadings and exercise the power as available to it under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

"Insofar as the plea of the appellant / defendant that the suit has not been properly instituted is concerned, the suit has been instituted by the husband of the respondent / plaintiff on the basis of an authorization letter executed by the respondent / plaintiff in his favour which includes authority by the respondent / plaintiff to appear, plead, sign, file, verify, etc," the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: SH. DINESH SHARMA v. MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 367

Click Here To Read Order