Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P. 85/2021
KHANNA BROTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Adv.
Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Siddharth Arora and Mr. Priyansh Jain, Advs.
Date of Decision: 26th July, 2022
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14th January, 2020, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.74,64,107/- along with pendent elite and future interest @ 24% per annum against the respondent-company. The respondent – company though in the written statement denied the liability, however, subsequently, on an application being moved under Order XI Rule 12 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff produced a memorandum of understanding entered into between the company and its directors. 2022:DHC:2912
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said agreement dated 22nd January, 2018 and supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018, there is a clear-cut admission of the liability of the company qua the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of this categorical admission as appearing in the supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018, the application of the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC should have been allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Order XII Rule 6 CPC and emphasized that the said provision makes it clear that the admission made in the pleadings or otherwise have to be taken into account for exercising the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
6. Learned counsel submits that merely because the respondent has denied their liability in the written statement, the Trial Court should not have declined to exercise its jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Payal Vision Ltd V. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405, Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (smt) and Anr. (2005) 11 SCC 279.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of these judgments makes it clear that the facts of each case have to be examined and if there is any admission on the part of the respondent which can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, then the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC should be allowed.
9. Learned counsel further submits that as per the scheme of CPC, only petitioner could have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and the Hon’ble court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction is duty bound to ensure that no illegality is committed by the Trial Court.
10. Mr. Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the revision petition.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this court has limited jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. Learned counsel further submits that the bare perusal of Section 115 CPC would make it clear that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only if either the Trial court has exercised the jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law or have exceeded its jurisdiction or has acted illegally or committed material irregularity.
12. Learned counsel has further submitted that even the bare perusal of the Supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018 would make it clear that there is no unequivocal admission on the part of the company qua the liability as raised by the plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 570/2016.
13. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
14. Before proceeding to examine the facts on merit, it is necessary to see the scope of jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Section 115 CPC. Section 115 CPC reads as under; “(1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: [Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.] [(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. [(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.] Explanation--.In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.]”
15. In the Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Anr. V. Ajit Prasad Tarway (1972) 3 SCC 195, it was inter alia held as under:
18. Thus, it has repeatedly been held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. It can be exercised only if the Trial Court has exceeded the jurisdiction or exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The revisional jurisdiction can also be exercised if, there is any material irregularity or illegality.
19. This Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot replace its view in place of the view already been taken by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Clauses A and B of the supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018. Clauses A and B are reproduced herein below:
B. RVAGIL and Sh. Rohit Bhagat shall fully co operate with each other for recovering Appz INR 40 Lacs due from Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. on account of supplies made to M/s Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. by M/s Khanna Brothers, Faridabad. The Balance INR 35 Lacs shall be paid by Sh. Rohit Bhagat as full and final settlement of Khanna Brothers account. A sincere effort shall be undertaken by Sh. Rohit Bhagat for withdrwal of Civil suit No. 570 of 2016 pending in the Hon’ble Rohini Courts filed by M/s Khanna Brothers. However RVAGIL shall not have any sort of liability in the aforesaid matter.
20. The bare perusal of Clauses A and B of supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018 makes it clear that Sh. Ramesh Bhagat, who is stated to be the Director of the respondent –company HAS agreed to pay an amount of Rs.45 lacs to the company, on account of repayment of loan availed, on or before 1st September, 2014. It further states that the interest on such loan shall be waived on withdrawal of civil Suit No. 570/2016.
21. It is not disputed that the Civil Suit No. 570/2016 is a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent in which the present application has been filed. However, the reading of Clause A nowhere leads to an inference that the company has admitted its liability towards the petitioner. Similarly, in Clause B, the company and Sh. Rohit Bhagat have agreed to cooperate with each other in recovering of Rs.40 lacs from Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. on account of supplies made by the petitioner herein.
22. This Clause further reads that the balance amount of Rs.35 lacs shall be paid by Sh. Rohit Bhagat as full and final settlement of Khanna Brothers. This is also something which is being settled between Sh. Rohit Bhagat and the Company. There is no unambiguous admission on the part of the company regarding the liability towards the petitioner.
23. I consider that all these matters require evidence. This court do not consider that the learned Trial Court has either exceeded the jurisdiction or has exercised the jurisdiction which is not vested in it. The facts placed before this Court, also do not indicate that there is any material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Trial Court.
24. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present petition along with pending application stands dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JULY 26, 2022 Pallavi