LexM/S. JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD. versus M/S JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" .... [2010] 6 S.C.R. 546 A MIS. JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD. 8 v. MIS JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 2010) MAY 7, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 12 r. 6 - Judgment on admission - Held: There should be a clear and C unequivocal admission of the case of the plaintiff by the defendant - It is essentially a question of fact and depends on the facts of the case - On facts, in suit for possession by landlord against tenant, there is no clear admission of the case of landlord about termination of tenancy by tenant in its D written statement or in its reply to the petition of landlord ul Or. 12 r. 6 - Thus, order of trial court and High Court, set aside - Matter remanded to trial court for disposal of the suit. The respondent-landlord filed suit against the E appellant-tenant for recovery of possession and mesne profits on the ground that the lease deed had expired by efflux of time and notice to that effect was sent to the appellant but the appellant failed to vacate the suit property. The appellant filed written statement. The respondent did not file any rejoinder. They filed an F application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The High Court upheld the order of the trial court holding that the case of ejectment was made out against the appellant on the basis of admission of the case of the respondent in G the written statement filed by the appellant. Hence, the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court H 546 I JEEVAN DIESELS & ELECTRICALS LTD. v. JASBfR 5471 SINGH CHADHA (HUF) HELD: 1.1. The principles of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, ·A can be followed only if there is a clear and unequivocal admission of the case of the plaintiff by the appellant. Whether or not there is a clear, unambiguous admission by one party of the case of the other party is essentially a question of fact and the decision of this question B depends on the facts of the case. This question, namely, whether there is a clear admission or not cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent. [Paras 12 and 13] (552-G-H; 553-A-B] 1.2. In the instant case, the respondent filed an C application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a judgment on admission. In the said petition, the respondents-plaintiffs averred that in view of the admission on existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and thereafter, service of the termination notice, D the only question left for adjudication for the purpose of possession is "whether the termination of the tenancy has been validly terminated?" To that application the appellant gave a reply, again denying that there was any admission by them about termination or determination of E tenancy. It was stated that in the suit issues are still to be framed and the case be tried in accordance with CPC as there is no admission by the appellant and the respondents-plaintiffs had to prove its case with legally admissible evidence. As such prayer was made to F dismiss the application of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. [Paras 8, 1 O and 11] [551-E; 552-A-E] \ 1.3. It cannot be said that there is a clear admission of the case of the respondents-plaintiffs about G termination of tenancy by the appellant in its written statement or in its reply to the petition of the respondents- p 1 a in tiffs under Order 12 Rule 6. The parties have confined their case of admission to their pleading only. The counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs fairly stated H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A before this Court that _he is not invoking the case of admission 'otherwise than on pleading'. Thus, in the pleadings of the appellant there is no clear admission of the case of respondents-plaintiffs. [Paras 14 and 15] [553- D-G] B 1.4. In view of the facts of the instant case, the judgment of the High Court as well as of the Additional District Judge cannot be upheld and are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit as early as possible [Paras 22 and 23] C [555-E-F] Karam Kapahi and Ors. vs. Mis. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Anr. 2010 (3) SCALE 569, distinguished. o Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120; Koramall Rambal/av vs. Mongilal Dalimchand 23 Calcutta Wee'kly Notes (1918-19) 1017; J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.