pg. 1 of 4 HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI I.A. No. 15614/2008 in CS (OS) No.1162/2007 Date of Decision: August 6, 2009 SH. KISHAN CHAND KHANNA. … PLAINTIFF Through: Mr. Alok Aggarwal, Adv. Versus SH. VIMAL KHANNA & ANR. .… DEFENDANTS Through: Mr. Vikramjeet Bannerjee, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not? S.L. BHAYANA, J. 1. This application No. 15614/08 in CS(OS) No.1162/07 has been moved by the plaintiff under Order12 Rule 6 for passing a decision on the basis of admission made by the defendant. 2. This is a case of eviction by the plaintiff, from the ground floor of the suit property bearing No.AE-95, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises. Parties’ relationship inter se is of father and son. Plaintiff had disowned Defendant no. 1 around somewhere in February 2005. 3. Plaintiff based his claim for a decision on admitted facts in the written statement and on the reply to the notice dated 23/06/07. 4. Defendants admit part of plaintiffs claim and deny rest of the same in their written statement. pg. 2 of 4 Firstly, it is unequivocally admitted by the defendants that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the suit property. In the year 1982, suit property was allotted to the plaintiff by the D.D.A., conveyance deed was also issued by the D.D.A. in favour of the plaintiff. Secondly it is again admitted by the defendants that in the year 1979, a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Rajnesh Textile was open in the shop No. 602 in Katra Ansari, Chandani Chowk, wherein Smt. Prem Lata (wife of plaintiff) was made partner of 60% and Kamal K.C. Khanna (elder brother of the Defendant no.1) was made partner of 40%, Defendant no.1 was not the partner of the above mentioned partnership firm. Thirdly a bare perusal of the Order sheet dated 10/12/2007 unfolds the whole matter, ordered in the presence of the parties. As being relevant to be reproduced below: “The parties are likely to settle the matter. I am told that the defendants have shifted their residence temporarily to Gurgaon but they have not vacated the premises in question and they are still under defendant’s lock and key. Defendants state that they be given a month’s time either to shift to the rented premises or their own house.” 5. To oppose the present suit the defendants have asserted in their defence that the main cause of the present suit is the non Satisfaction of the plaintiff from dowry given by the defendants in law. Such kind of defence is quite untenable after 20 yrs of marriage and unfounded. 6. It is well settled that where the admission are equivocal, unambiguous, clear and when the court finds that offered defence pg. 3 of 4 is vexatious, false and not tenable, the court may pronounce a judgment on admission. It is discretion to be exercised by the court after taking consideration of all facts and circumstances. In order to appreciate question in hand, it is relevant to take note of judgment of Apex Court in Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. vs. Union Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740, wherein it was held that; “As to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, 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." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where 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.” And by Delhi high court in Raj Gopal (Huf) Vs. State Bank of India, 79(1999)DLT229 “The purport of Rule 6 of Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enable the party to obtain speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief which, according to the admission of the other party, he is entitled to. The Division Bench of this court in Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhastan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others 66 (1997) DLT 54 has held that admission on which judgment could be claimed must be clear and unequivocal one and that such an admission made in the suit or even for a part of the claim enables a party to get a decree passed to the extent of the admission. The aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is well settled that in case of clear and unequivocal admissions the suit could be decreed which may be whole or in part for one of the reliefs. pg. 4 of 4 In the aforesaid case the Division Bench also laid down the factors which deserve to be taken into consideration to enable the court to pass a decree in plaintiff's favor as regards possession in such like suit which are - (a) existence of relationship of Lesser and lessee or entry in possession of the suit property by defendant as a tenant; and (b) determination of such relation in any of the contingency, as envisaged in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was also held that an unequivocal admission of the above two factors would entitle the plaintiff to a decree for possession and that such admission need not be made expressly in the pleadings. Even on constructive admissions the court can proceed to pass a decree in plaintiff's favour.” 7. In the view of the candid admission made by the defendant in their pleadings, the order sheet dated 10/12/07 and the vexatious, stand which stands disposed by their own undertaking, defence raise the defendants thus needs no investigation. Balance of Convenience also favour plaintiff. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is allowed and stands disposed of. CS(OS) No. 1162/2007 Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Insofar as the right of possession is concerned, defendants are given one month’s time, to give vacant and peaceful possession of the ground floor of the suit property to the plaintiff. S.L. BHAYANA, J. August 6, 2009