Birmala Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashwani Ahluwalia

2. Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, learned counsel for the plaintiff has taken this Court through the Collaboration Agreement 09.12.2019 and has also pointed out that in the said Collaboration Agreement, an amount of Rs.50 Lacs and Rs.[1] Crore, which was given by the plaintiff, has been unequivocally accepted by the defendant. He submits that so far as the amount of Rs.90 Lacs by cheque is concerned, since was not deposited, therefore, today; he is not claiming the said amount. He, however, submits that once the factum of execution of the Collaboration Agreement stands admitted by the defendants, there is no reason as to why the suit should not be decreed in terms of the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

3. Mr. Daksh, learned counsel has also taken this Court through the pleadings made by the defendants in Civil Suit No. 1551/2019 (hereinafter referred to as „the said suit‟) and contends that another suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction along with the damages was filed by the defendant. He further submits that in paragraph nos.[7] and 8 of the plaint of the said suit, the defendant admit the execution of the Collaboration Agreement dated 09.12.2019. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the various Courts, in Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani[1], Nanjappan vs. Ramasamy & Anr.2, Tara Sikand Atwal vs. Viraj Sikand & Ors.3,Praveen Saini vs. Reetu Kapur & Anr.4, Ravi Chaudhary vs. Kanta Ahuja[5] Venezia Mobili (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2003(6) SCC 595

2019 (175) DRJ 346 2018 (246) DLT 709 2017 (9) AD (Delhi) 435 & Ors.6, Oxbridge Associates Limited vs. Mr.Atul Kumra[7], Mohd. Aziz vs. Riyazuddin[8] and Karan Madaan and Others vs. Nageshwar Pandey[9].

4. He, therefore, submits that under these circumstances, the instant suit deserves to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

5. The aforesaid submissions and contentions are vehemently opposed by Ms. Diya Kapur, learned senior counsel for the defendant. She submits that if the pleading made by the defendant in various paragraphs of the written statement are perused in right perspective, the same would clearly indicate that the defendant stand is unequivocal that a fraud has been committed with him. She further contends that it is categorically stated that blank papers were signed, and the defendant has never accepted the payment of Rs. 50 Lacs and Rs.[1] Crore in cash. She also submits that the entire stand taken by the plaintiff is misconceived, and there is no unequivocal admission made by the defendant. She has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajesh Mitra alias Rajesh Kumar Mitra and Another vs. Karnani Properties Ltd.10 and Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar11

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record. 2019 (259) DLT 13 2019 (178) DRJ 398 2020 (266) DLT 653 2014 (209) DLT 241

7. Before devolving into a factual analysis, it is important to examine the scope of provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The aforesaid provision reads as under:

8. The object of the aforenoted dynamic provision is that if there is no dispute between the parties with respect to certain aspects of the case and if there are no pleadings or otherwise such an admission as to make it evident that the party in the question is entitled to the relief claimed with respect to the same aspect, then, he should be able to obtain such relief on the basis of the admission so made. The primary aim of the rule is to provide a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the admissions made by the opposite party.

9. The legal position concerning Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. In particular, the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India,12 has put to rest the object and scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. It was observed that in the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the Rule 6 of Order XII, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled”. It was also reiterated that where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed”

10. In Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd13, the Supreme Court observed that:

11. Similarly, in the recent judgment titled Rajesh Mitra v. Karnani Properties Ltd.14, also relied upon by the defendants herein, the Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed that the legal position concerning Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is well-settled and rendered the following findings:

“3.... It is for the courts to see whether any statement in the pleadings or otherwise amounts to an admission of such a nature as to inspire the confidence of the court to pass judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. It will depend upon the content and kind of statement/admission which may vary from case to case. In other words, it would depend upon the totality of facts and circumstances of a particular given case. In the present case, here, it is not a „clear admission‟ as is being made out. Moreover, where the question and its answer are both a mixed question of fact and law, as in the present case, a so called „admission‟ against the law can never be an “admission” as visualised under Order XII Rule 6. However, more on this later. Order XII Rule 6 is meant for speedy disposal of the suits in some cases but on the risk of repetition, we would like to caution that unless there is a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and unconditional admission, courts should not exercise their discretion under the Rule because judgment on admissions is without a trial which may even preclude a party to challenge the matter on merits in the court of appeal. The provision of law, which is meant for the expeditious disposal of appropriate cases, should therefore be cautiously exercised and it should never come in the way of any defendant denying him the valuable right of contesting the claim…”

12. Additionally, this Court, while considering the aforementioned decisions, in Smt Neeru Mehra v. Smt Astha Ghai Walia & Anr15, has held that issues raised in a suit involving mixed questions of law and fact, that cannot be resolved purely on the basis of admissions, require proper adjudication.