HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. versus DALJIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 24-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.
v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4265 of 2019)
APRIL 24, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XII, r.6 – Judgment on
admission – Respondents-plaintiffs case that appellant no.2-
defendant approached them for sale of suit property and the
franchisee rights in respect of the running business of a automobile
company ‘T’– Respondents alleged that the appellant company
concluded the agreement for sale of the suit schedule property and
the running business for a total consideration of Rs.55.50 crores –
It is further alleged that respondents had paid an amount of Rs. 5
crores i.e. Rs. 2 crore by cheque and Rs. 3 Crore by cash to the
appellants – Dispute arose between the parties – Respondents filed
suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Appellants-
defendants raised preliminary objections stating that respondents
had forged/fabricated, the agreement to sell – While opposing the
reliefs, appellants admitted that although an agreement was entered
into with the respondents for the sale of land, but the said contract
was never crystallized, as the nature, extent and various clauses
were not finalised – Appellants also disputed receipt of Rs. 3 crores,
which was allegedly paid by the respondents by way of cash –
Respondent filed application u/Or.XII, r.6 – Single Judge of the
High Court dismissed the application u/Or.XII, r.6 – However, the
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single
Judge and allowed the application – On appeal, held: Mere
admission of entering into arrangement/agreement cannot be termed
as a categorical and unconditional admission for the purpose of
delivering judgment by allowing the application filed u/Or.XII, r.6
– Such admissions were erroneously treated as categorical and
unconditional admissions by the Division Bench of High Court for
disposal of the application u/Or. XII, r.6 – Further, suit was filed on
01.11.2006 and the application  u/Or.XII, r.6 was filed on 09.02.2007
– In the year 2010 issues, additional issues were framed and trial
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 819
819
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
also commenced – In that view of the matter, there was no reason to
pass order now u/Or.XII, r.6 at this stage – In view of the serious
factual disputes and the defence of the appellants in the suit, it is
not permissible for making roving inquiry for disposal of the
application filed u/Or. XII, r.6 of CPC – When the trial has already
commenced, it is desirable to record findings on various contentious
issues and disputes in the suit on merits by appreciating evidence
but at the same time there is no reason or justification to decree the
suit at this stage – For the aforesaid reasons, that the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside and the
order of the Single Judge of the High Court restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  By applying the ratio laid down by Supreme Court
in the various  judgments, it is to be held that there are no
categorical and unconditional admissions, as claimed by the
respondents-plaintiffs. In view of the stand of the appellants that,
the pages 3 and 4 of the agreement dated 3.5.2005 are tampered
and their signatures are fabricated, when specific issue is already
framed, it cannot be said that there are categorical and
unconditional admissions by the appellants. Mere admission of
entering into arrangement/contract itself cannot be considered
in isolation, without considering the further objections of the
appellants that certain pages in the agreement are fabricated.  In
case the appellants prove that the agreement is fabricated as
claimed, post trial it goes to the root of the case on the claim of
the respondents-plaintiffs. [Para 33][840-G-H; 841-A-B]
2.  In this case it is to be noted that the suit was filed on
1.11.2006 and written statement was filed on 25.01.2007 and the
application under Order XII, Rule 6 was filed on 9.2.2007.  In the
year 2010 issues and additional issues were framed and trial is
also commenced.  In that view of the matter, there is no reason
to pass the impugned order now for decreeing the suit on claimed
admissions, in exercise of power under Order XII, rule 6 of CPC
at this stage. In view of the serious factual disputes and the
defence of the appellants in the suit, it is not permissible for
making roving inquiry for disposal of the applicatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.