PARVEEN SINGHAL vs MOTIA RANI GHAI
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 5th February, 2024
+ C.R.P. 43/2024
PARVEEN SINGHAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Awijit Paliwal and Ms.
Aprajita Verma, Advs.
versus
MOTIA RANI GHAI ….. Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 6530/2024 (Ex.)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
C.R.P. 43/2024
3. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the Civil Suit bearing No.
408/2020 before the learned Trial Court, is aggrieved of the order
dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01,
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi1, whereby his
application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 19082 was dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioner/plaintiff
1 ADJ
2 CPC
and on perusal of the record, I find that the present appeal is bereft of
any merits. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner/plaintiff filed
the pending suit against the respondent/defendant seeking specific
performance of the contract dated 24.02.2020, whereby he had agreed
to buy the property in question measuring 20 Sq. Yards for a total sale
consideration of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- and had given the advance amount
of Rs. 15,00,000/-, which provided that the sale deed would be
executed by 24.06.2020. It is the own case of the petitioner/plaintiff
that since COVID-19 lockdown had been imposed by the Government
of India w.e.f. 22.03.2020, he vide letter dated 24.06.2020 requested
the respondent/defendant to extend the time for performing his part of
the contract by three months, which was evidently returned by the
respondent/defendant vide reply dated 07.07.2020.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, on filing of the written statement by
the respondent/defendant, an application under Order XII Rule 6 read
with Section 151 of the CPC was moved by the petitioner/plaintiff,
which came to be dismissed by the learned ADJ assigning the
following reasons:
The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable the parties to
obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief,
plaintiff is entitled to as per the admission of the defendant. In case
of “Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. Vs Smt. Kamal Saroj
Mahajan and Anr.” AIR 2005 SC 2765, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that order 12 Rule 6 CPC is enacted for the purpose
to expedite the trials and if there is any admission on behalf of the
defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case without any dispute of the matter, then in
such a case, in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such
admission can be acted upon.
A bare perusal of the written statement filed by defendant
shows that defendant has not made any admission as claimed by
the plaintiff in his application, rather it has been asserted by the
defendant in reply on merits in para 7 of her written statement that
“That the contents of para no.? of the suit under reply are matter of
record. But, the fact that the Govt. of India announced first un-
lockdown since Oi.06.2020 and after that defendant vigorously
approached the plaintiff and requested to complete the pending
process in the matter of said property but the plaintiff never pay
any attention towards the request of the defendant. Then, defendant
through her legal counsel sent a legal notice dated 22.06.2020 to
the plaintiff “. The plaintiff has not clarified as to on which
admission/denials of the written statement, he is relying upon in the
present application. The defendant also took the defense that the
plaintiff got failed for the execution of the agreements on time then
the amount deposited by him became forfeited. There is no
unequivocal, clear, unambiguous or unconditional admission made
by the defendants in their written statement. It appears that the
present application has been moved by the plaintiff just to delay the
proceedings.
Therefore, in light of above discussion this court is of the
opinion that the present case cannot be decided without leading
evidence by the parties and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for
judgment in the suit at this stage as there are triable issues involved
in the present matter. The application of the plaintiff under order
XII rule 6 CPC is accordingly dismissed.
Judgments referred to by ld. Counsel for plaintiff have no
application to the facts of the present case in view of abovesaid
discussion.
It is made clear that nothing said herein above shall affect
the merits of the case or prejudice the rights of any of the parties.
Application stands disposed off.
6. Learned counsels for the petitioner/plaintiff has urged that the
respondent/defendant has made a clear admission that such an
agreement had been executed and notice dated 22.06.2020 was given
even before the date for performance of the agreement to sell and
thereby forfeiting the earnest money as well. It is submitted that there
was no denial on the part of the respondent/ defendant that he was
bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell.
7. I am afraid this Court cannot agree more with the reason
accorded by the learned Trial Court that there was no clear,
unconditional or unequivocal admission on the part of the respondent/
defendant. Needless to state that the petitioner/plaintiff has to prove in
the trial that he was always ready all and willing to execute his part of
the performance of the agreement. The respondent/defendant on the
other hand has prima facie averred that due to the non-performance of
the agreement by the petitioner/plaintiff, he has been irreparably
prejudiced as he needed the finances for running his own business.
8. The issues raised by the respondent/defendant are by all means
triable issues, which cannot be decided without leading evidence by
the parties.
9. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed without
prejudice.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for
information and records.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 05, 2024
Sadique