Delhi District Court
Chottey Lal Pandey Through Lrs vs Naresh Garg on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
DISTRICT JUDGE-13 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RCA DJ No. 26/25
Unique ID No. : DLCT01-002516-2025
In the matter of:
CHOTTEY LAL PANDEY (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH LR'S
a. SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY
S/O LATE SHRI CHOTTEY LAL PANDEY
R/O H. NO. 8-D, FOURTH FLOOR,
BLOCK B, SARAI BASTI,
SARAI ROHILLA
DELHI-110035.
b. SMT. SUNITA (DAUGHTER)
W/O SH. SHANKAR DAYAL
R/O E-2/69A, THIRD FLOOR,
GALI NO. 2, SHASTRI NAGAR,
DELHI-110052.
c. SMT. HEMLATA (DAUGHTER)
W/O SH. SARWAN KUMAR MISHRA
R/O H. NO. 8-D, FOURTH FLOOR,
BLOCK-B, SARAI BASTI, SARAI
ROHILLA, DELHI-110035.
d. SMT. ANITA DUBEY (DAUGHTER)
W/O SH. AVDESH KUMAR DUBEY
R/O 14/5, RAILWAY QUARTERS,
SAROJINI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110023 ..............APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 1 of 24
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:06:56
+0530
NARESH GARG
S/O SH. RAM KISHAN GARG
R/O MU-47, PITAM PURA,
DELHI-110034 ............RESPONDENT
Date of institution : 14.02.2025
Date of Reserving judgment : 19.07.2025
Date of pronouncement : 26.07.2025
JUDGMENT
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 AND
DECREE DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH.
SAHIL GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGE-07, (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI IN SUIT NO.: CS SCJ 363/2022 TITLED AS
“NARESH GARG VS. CHOTTEY LAL PANDEY”
1. Vide this order, this Court shall decide the appeal under Section
96 read with Order 41 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree
dated 23.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court whereby, the application
under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC being filed by the
respondent/plaintiff was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court and aggrieved
against the said order under Section XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC,
the instant appeal has been filed.
2. That, to dispose of the appeal, the brief material facts are that
the respondent/plaintiff claims that they are entitled to possession of
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 2 of 24
Digitally signed
by SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.26
16:07:02
+0530
shop bearing no. 307/1/72B, Shahzada Bagh, Extension, Daya Basti,
Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-110035, whereby it has been further stated
that respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the
appellant/defendant was inducted as tenant by the mother of the
respondent/plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 5000/- and after her demise,
the respondent/plaintiff became the landlord of the suit premises. The
suit property was identified as a dangerous building of inhabitation as
per the advisory issued by the NDMC. The respondent/plaintiff orally
asked the appellant/defendant to vacate the suit property, but
appellant/defendant did not vacate the suit property and has not paid the
rent since 2021 and is in arrears of rent of Rs. 15,000/-.
3. The written statement to that suit has been filed by the
appellant/defendant and has stated that he was inducted as tenant in the
shop by the mother of the respondent/plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 125/- per
month and after demise of the mother of respondent/plaintiff, the
appellant/defendant started paying rent to the respondent/plaintiff at the
rate of Rs. 1700/- per month. When the respondent/plaintiff asked the
appellant/defendant to vacate the suit property in the 2017, the
respondent/plaintiff told appellant/defendant to either vacate the shop or
give Rs. 3,00,000/- towards security deposit alongwith the monthly
rent. Later on, defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month alongwith
the security amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It was further agreed that the
defendant will pay Rs. 1,00,000/- within one month and will pay the
remaining security amount in installment of Rs. 3000/- per month
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 3 of 24
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:06
+0530
besides the rent amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. That, despite
defendant’s insistence, the plaintiff issued only one receipt of Rs. 5000/-
as consolidated amount of rent as well as security.
4. On the admission of the defendant and relied upon the rent
receipt, the Ld. Trial Court allowed the application under Order XII
Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC. Aggrieved against the said impugned order
on the application under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC passed
in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the
appellant/defendant, the instant appeal has been filed on the following
grounds:-
A) BECAUSE the trial court has wrongly exercised its discretion in
passing the impugned Judgment/order and Decree under Order
12 Rule 6 of CPC despite the fact that the admissions made by the
appellants were not unequivocal, clear or sufficient to dispose of
the same by passing the impugned order and decree. It is settled
law that such admissions ought to be clear, unambiguous, definite
and unequivocal. It is submitted that the appellants never
admitted that the rate of rent was Rs. 5,000/- per month rather it
was clearly mentioned in the written statement that the amount of
Rs. 2000/- was paid as rent and Rs. 3000/-was used to be paid
towards the installment of the security amount.
B) BECAUSE the tenancy of the predecessor in interest of the
appellants or the appellants were never terminated/determined by
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 4 of 24
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:11
+0530
the respondent herein before filing the suit and no notice was sent
prior to filing the present suit.
C) BECAUSE the admission allegedly made by the appellants does
not meet the requirements under Order 12 Rule 6 as the same is
not in relation to the whole of the case. It is also settled law that
the court is not bound to pass a judgment on application under
Order 12 Rule 6 where no specific admissions have been made
and where complicated questions of law and facts arise and
triable issues between the parties emerge, the passing of the
summary judgment in this rule may not be in the interest of
justice. It is also a settled principle of civil jurisprudence that
judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a
matter of discretion of a Court. Where the defendant has raised
objection which will go to the very root of the case, it would not
be appropriate to exercise this discretion. The use of the words
‘May’ and ‘make such orders’ or ‘give such judgment’ spells out
that power under these rules are discretionary and use of
discretion would have to be controlled in accordance with the
known judicial cannons. The cases which involves questions to
be decided upon regular trial and the alleged admissions are not
clear and specific, it may not be appropriate to take recourse to
these provisions. In the case of Pariwar Sewa Sansthan vs. Dr.
(Mrs) Veena Kalra and Ors. AIR 2000 Delhi 349 the Court
examined at length the provisions and the need for an admission
to be unequivocal and positive. The admission would obviouslyRCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 5 of 24
Digitally signed
by SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.26
16:07:18
+0530
have the consequences of arriving at that conclusion without
determination of any question and evidence. The Court while
relying upon the case of Balraj Taneja and Another vs. Sunil
Madan and Another AIR 1999 SC 3381 and Dudh Nath Pandey
vs. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali AIR 1986 SC 1509 held as under:
“In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum it was held that
Order 12 Rule 6 has to be read along with the proviso to Rule 5 of
Order 8. That is to say, notwithstanding the admission made by
the defendant in his pleading, the Court may still require the
plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint. Thus, in
spite of admission of a fact having been made by a party to the
suit, the Court may still require the plaintiff to prove the fact
which has been admitted by the defendant.
At this stage it would be useful to recall some factual contentions
emerging from the pleadings…….
….The question whether defendant became contractual tenant
after 1995, when they were called upon to vacate the premises on
the ground of alleged violation of the terms of the lease, and
effect of the circumstances leading to the acceptance of the rent
by the two plaintiffs individually in their respective names would
require trial. These questions could not be determined without
evidence and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of
“unequivocal” and clear positive admission, which is an essential
requirement of law for a decree on admission. Learned trial Court
instead of concentrating on the question that whether there wasRCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 6 of 24
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:24
+0530
any admission on the part of the defendant or not in its pleadings
or elsewhere, proceeded to adjudicate upon some of the issues on
merits by observing that the pleas raised by defendant are
unbelievable, which could not have been done. There being
triable issues raised going to the root of the case, the trial Court
ought to have proceeded to try the suits and returned findings on
merits. The impugned judgment and decrees are thus liable to be
set aside and the suits deserve to be remanded for trial in
accordance with law.
Having noticed the above principle of law, it is clear that the
admission by a party has to be in definite and clear terms. The
trial court has failed to apply the principles enunciated in the case
of Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd. 94 (2001) DLT
205, which has even noticed by the trial Court, wherein the Court
observed that what is right of an unpaid seller cannot be decided
under Order 12 Rule 6 because there is no clear admission.”
C) Because the case at hand raises triable issues. The stand
taken by the defendant, inter alia, therein that the rate of rent is
Rs. 2000/- p.m. and Rs. 3,000/- were use to be collected by the
plaintiff/respondent herein on account of installment of security
amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was clearly mentioned in the
written statement filed by the appellant/defendant herein. This
fact cannot be frustrated by merely passing a decree of possession
under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In the event, this Hon’ble Court, after
taking into account the evidence led by the parties, comes to the
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 7 of 24
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:30
+0530
conclusion that the rate of rent is Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and Rs. 3,000/-
use to be collected by the plaintiff/respondent herein on account
of installment of security amount, in that background,
Plaintiffs/respondent herein would not be entitled to the
possession of said premises in question at all. In the case titled:
“Mrs. Vijay Gupta & Ors vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta (Reported as
AIR 2007 Delhi 166)”, the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, was pleased to observe thus:
“7. The term ‘Admission’ in Section 70 of the Evidence Act
relates only to admission of a party in the course of the trial of the
suit and not to the attestation of a document by the party
executing it. The essential feature of admission is that it should be
‘Concise and deliberate act’. It must not be something which was
not intended and was not the intention of the party. Pre- requisite
to admission are unconditional, unambiguous and intend the
same to be read and construed as admission. The scope of
admission of a claim is also explained under Order IX Rule 8 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, which contemplates that there must
be a claim as laid down in the plaint which is admitted, for the
ground stated therein and not simply an admission of cause of
action. The legislative intent is clear from the provisions of the
Code that an admission has to be unambiguous and clear. The
Black’s Law Dictionary explain the word ‘Admission’ as follows:
“admission: Any statement or assertion made by a party to a case
and offered against that party; an acknowledgment that facts areRCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 8 of 24
Digitally signed
by SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:35 +0530
true.
Admission against interest. A person’s statement acknowledging
a fact that is harmful to the person’s position as a litigant. An
admission against interest must be made either by a litigant or by
one in privity with or occupying the same legal position as the
litigant.”
D) Because the power under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. In the matter of “S. M. Asif vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj
(Reported as AIR 2015 SC 3670)”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has held that:
“9. The words in Order XII Rule 6 CPC “may” and “make such
order…” show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a
matter of discretion of the Court. Where the defendants have
raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be
appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6
CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers
discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on
admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the
parties of his opponent’s claim. In the suit for eviction filed by the
respondent-landlord, appellant-tenant has admitted the
relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but
resisted respondent-plaintiff’s claim by setting up a defence pleaRCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 9 of 24
Digitally signed
by SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.26
16:07:39
+0530
of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50
lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the respondent-
landlord…. When such issues arising between the parties ought to
be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant
cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
E) BECAUSE 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. In the matter of “M/s Jeevan Diesels &
Electricals Ltd vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (Reported as AIR 2010
SC 1890)”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically
held that:
“13. 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 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….”
F) BECAUSE the trial court failed to properly appreciate the facts
and the nature of the admission made by the appellants. The
admission on record does not constitute a valid or binding
acknowledgment of the appellants claim in entirety. The trial
court has failed to take into account that the rent is only Rs.
2,000/- per month which has been increased from Rs. 1700/- to
Rs. 2,000/- and not Rs. 5,000/- per month.
G) BECAUSE the trial has not appreciated that the admission is not
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 10 of 24
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:43
+0530
clear and the trial has passed the impugned order in haste and
without applying the judicial mind.
H) BECAUSE the trial court did not properly consider the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case in arriving at its conclusion.
There is sufficient material on the court record to consider the
fact that the rent is Rs. 2,000/- per month and not Rs. 5,000/- per
month as the plaintiff having dishonest intention and to keep the
defendant in dark and in order to create false evidence issued
three receipts of different dates on the same day mentioning a
consolidated amount wherein the plaintiff issued one receipt no.
36 dated 02.11.2017 for a sum of. 15,000/- (Receipt No. 36) for
the period 01.09.2017 to 30.11.2017, another receipt no. 45 dated
09.07.2021 for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- for the period 01.12.2017
to 31.07.2021 and one another receipt no. 46 dated 17.01.2022
for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the period 01.08.2021 to 30.11.2021.
The respondent herein deliberately, dishonestly and with
malafide intention issued the consolidated receipts and did not
show the separate amount Rs. 2,000/- as rent and Rs. 3,000/- as
installment towards security amount despite receiving the
abovesaid amount on monthly basis regularly as reflected in the
replication filed by the respondent herein. The respondent got the
receipts signed by the predecessor of the appellants and he signed
the same in the good faith as he was an illiterate person. The
defendant further mentioned in the written statement that the
plaintiff filled up a single consolidated receipt no. 45 for entire
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 11 of 24
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:50
+0530
amount of security paid till date i.e. Rs. 2,20,000/- along with
another receipt no. 46 for four months rent and installment of four
months security upto date i.e. Rs. 8000/- towards rent and Rs.
12,000/-towards installment of security only on 17.01.2022 and
that too after the great insistence of the son of defendant but here
too plaintiff did not issue the receipt but only took the signature of
the defendant’s son on the receipt on the pretext that he will issue
the same only after confirming from his accounts and left the
shop. The defendant further alleged that the rent receipts annexed
with the plaint are totally wrong and false as it shows monthly
rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month although the monthly rent is only
Rs.2,000/- per month.
I) BECAUSE the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the
defendant was inducted as a tenant on Rs. 125/- per month and
from time to time it was increased to Rs. 175/-and thereafter Rs.
225/- and thereafter Rs.300/-thereafter Rs.400/-, thereafter
Rs.1700/- and thereafter Rs. 2,000/- and lastly the agreed rent
between the parties was Rs.2,000/- per month. There were
material facts that could have affected the outcome but were not
given adequate weight by the trial court its impugned judgment.
J) BECAUSE the order and decree passed order 12 Rule 6 violates
the principal of natural justice as it has been passed without
giving the appellant sufficient opportunity to contest the present
suit by leading the evidence in the matter. This has resulted in an
Digitally
unfair decree. signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:07:54
+0530
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 12 of 24
K) BECAUSE the decree passed by the Ld. trial court under Order
12 Rule 6 CPC has caused great prejudiced to the appellant side
as it effectively disposes off the suit prematurely without a full
hearing on merits. This has resulted in an unjust and unwarranted
decree.
L) BECAUSE the impugned Judgment and Decree is perverse and it
causes miscarriage of justice to the Appellants.
M)BECAUSE the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated that the
Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. The Ld. Trial
Court has not appreciated the fact that the Plaintiff has made false
averments regarding the rate of rent of Rs.5000/-p.m. and the
Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the application u/o 12 rule
6 C.P.C. as prayed in the application.
N) BECAUSE the impugned Judgment and Decree is based on
surmises and conjecturers and the same is liable to be set-aside.
O) BECAUSE the impugned Judgment and Decree is illegal,
arbitrary, unjust, unlawful and against the principle of natural
justice as well as against the material on the court record.
P) BECAUSE the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned
judgment and decree in a very casual, hasty and cryptic manner.
The said judgment and Decree is contrary to all cannon of justice
and principal of natural justice.
Q) BECAUSE the reasons recorded by the Ld. Trial Court in the
impugned Judgment and Decree is on the face of it extraneous
and contrary to material on record. Digitally signed
by SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.26
16:07:58
+0530RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 13 of 24
R) BECAUSE the Ld. Trial Court has mis-interpreted the facts for
passing the impugned Judgment and Decree and same is bad in
law. It is settled law that the decree is to be drawn from the date of
the judgment and not on the later date and hence the Ld. Trial
court has committed gross error while preparing the decree which
is liable to be set aside.
S) BECAUSE the respondent herein has misused and abused the
process of law as no rent was increased by the defendants from
Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month which is clear
from the averments made by the defendant as because before the
rent was reached to Rs. 2,000/-, the same was never increased for
the last 41 years. The trial court has failed to appreciate the
manner in which previously the rent was increased by the
plaintiff/respondent herein.
T) BECAUSE the Ld. trial court has failed to appreciate that the rent
cannot be Rs. 5,000/- per month of a shop which is of dimension
6′ X 6′ ft i.e. 4 sq. yds in that vicinity.
U) BECAUSE the respondent herein has failed to mention that how
many times the rent was increased and which amount to which
amount it was increased from time to time in the whole of the
plaint.
5. That, by way of the instant appeal, it is prayed that the
impugned judgment/order dated 23.11.2024 and decree dated
17.12.2024 passed by the Court of Sh. Sahil Gupta Ld. Civil Judge-07,
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg
KUMAR
KUMAR Page no. 14 of 24
Date:
2025.07.26
16:08:03
+0530
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the suit No. CS SCJ 363/2022 titled
as Naresh Garg Vs. Chottey Lal Pandey may kindly be set aside.
6. That upon notice of this appeal, respondent/ defendant appeared
in the Court and the case was fixed for arguments on the appeal, but in
the meantime, Ld. Counsel for appellant moved the application under
Section 151 CPC making a submission that there is patent illegality in
the impugned judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court and considering the
submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant, this Court had stayed the Trial
Court proceedings till next date of hearing. That order of this Court
whereby the proceedings of the Trial Court was stayed was challenged
by the respondent/petitioner in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CM
(M) 711/2025 & CM APPL 22919-22920/2025 titled as Naresh Garg
through GPA Sh. Naveen Gupta Vs. Chottey Lal Pandey through LRs
and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 21.04.2025 disposed
of the petition with direction to this Court to dispose of the appeal as
well as stay application in accordance with the law.
7. Keeping in view the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, this Court has asked ld. Counsel for both parties to make
submission on this application and during the course of the arguments
on the appeal, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre as there was
some possibility of settlement.
8. Vide order dated 05.05.2025, the settlement between the parties
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg KUMAR Date:Page no. 15 of 24
2025.07.26
16:08:07
+0530
have been arrived and as per settlement, the appellant had to hand over
the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. Shop 6×6 and
hand over the keys to the respondent/plaintiff and the
respondent/plaintiff has to make a payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the LRs
of appellant as full and final settlement towards compensation and
fitting, fixtures and furniture by way of DD/pay order which was to be
issued in favour of appellant Sunil Kumar Pandey before this Court on
dated 13.05.2025. The respondent/plaintiff appeared in the Court with
DD of Rs. 4,00,000/- in terms of the settlement arrived between the
parties before the Mediation Centre, however, the appellant has changed
his counsel and the new counsel appeared on 13.05.2025 and Ld.
Counsel for appellant refused to accept the DD of Rs. 4,00,000/- and
had not handed over the peaceful vacant possession and the keys of the
suit property to the respondent and Ld. Counsel for appellant moved an
application under Section 379 of BNSS-23 (Old Section 340 Cr.PC).
9. Though it was the delay tactics on the part of the appellant
inasmuch as in the presence of the Ld. Counsel for appellant, the
mediation settlement between the parties has been arrived amicably and
the new counsel for appellant has submitted that a fraud has been played
by the respondent/plaintiff not only with the appellant/defendant but
with the Court also and has submitted that his application under Section
379 of BNSS-23 (Old Section 340 Cr.PC) may kindly be disposed of
and upon submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant, court has issued the
notice of this application to the respondent and Ld. Counsel for
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg
KUMAR Date: Page no. 16 of 24
2025.07.26
16:08:11
+0530
respondent/plaintiff has filed the reply of the said application.
10. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant/defendant
that the respondent/plaintiff has committed forgery and cheating in the
judicial proceedings inasmuch as plaintiff has stated on oath and filed
his affidavit that contents of the plaint and annexures are true and
correct and nothing has been concealed therefrom, whereas he has
concealed the sale deed dated 20.12.2023 committed fraud and cheating
to get favourable order from the Ld. Trial Court and even the respondent
herein has hatched a criminal conspiracy to deprive the
appellant/defendant in the present appeal and deliberately and
intentionally concealed the sale deed dated 20.12.2023 which was well
within their knowledge. It has also been stated that the respondent no. 1
herein was the real owner of the shop situated at B-307/1/72-A and B,
Daya Basti, Shahzada Bagh, Old Rohtak Road, near NDPL Office,
North West Delhi, Delhi-110035. The respondent/plaintiff have entered
in hands with gloves of each other and hatched criminal conspiracy with
the appellant as well as with the administration of justice inasmuch as
the respondent/plaintiff filed eviction petition against the appellant
claiming himself (respondent no. 1) as owner of the suit property and
appointed respondent no. 2 as General Attorney vide GPA dated
20.12.2023 for proceedings of the civil suit for eviction and other
reliefs. The respondent no. 1 had played a fraud with the appellant as
well as administration of justice by concealing that he had already sold
the suit property to respondent herein vide sale deed dated 20.12.2023
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg KUMAR Date:Page no. 17 of 24
2025.07.26
16:08:16
+0530
and Ld. Trial Court has passed the order of eviction believing that the
respondent no. 1/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property.
11. The main contention of Ld. Counsel for appellant/defendant is
that there is concealment of fact inasmuch as sale deed dated
20.12.2023 and on the same day, GPA was executed by the erstwhile
owner in favour of respondent no. 1 to file this suit for possession before
Ld. Trial Court, whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent/plaintiff has stated
that there is no concealment of fact nor any fraud has been played
inasmuch as in the order sheet dated 03.05.2025, the court itself
mentioned that “appellant is tenant of the erstwhile owner from whom
the respondent has purchased the suit property. Size of the shop is 6 x 6”
and matter was referred to Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of
settlement and it is settled in the Mediation Centre and there is no
concealment nor any fraud has been played by any of the respondent.
12. Having heard the submission made by Ld. Counsel for both
parties and after gone through the record, this Court is of the considered
view that it is mentioned in the order sheet dated 03.05.2025 that the
appellant was tenant of the erstwhile owner and if property has been
sold out to some one then status of the appellant shall remain the same
as tenant in the suit property and therefore, this Court is also of the
considered view that no fraud is played in any manner by any of the
respondent with appellant or with the court. The application under
Section 379 of BNSS-23 (Old Section 340 Cr.PC) has been filed by the
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
Page no. 18 of 24
16:08:20
+0530
Ld. Counsel for appellant just to prolong the proceedings of this appeal
and to avoid and betray the settlement arrived between the parties in
Mediation Centre in the presence of Ld. Counsel for appellant.
Therefore, the application under Section 379 of BNSS-23 (Old Section
340 Cr.PC) appeares to be meritless. Hence, the same is dismissed.
13. That, respondent no. 1/plaintiff has moved the application under
Order XXII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for substitution of respondent
no. 1 and substitute Sh. Praveen Gupta S/o Late Dharamvir Gupta in
place of respondent no. 1 by and on behalf of applicant Sh. Praveen
Gupta, whereby it has been stated that the appellant has filed the appeal
against the order dated 23.11.2024 and on 03.05.2025, it was duly
disclosed to this court that premises in question had been sold by the
previous owner and respondent no. 1 Sh. Naresh Garg has sold the suit
property to Sh. Praveen Gupta by virtue of registered sale deed dated
20.12.2023 and therefore, the applicant Praveen Gupta may kindly be
substituted in place of Sh. Naresh Garg.
14. The notice of the said application was also served upon the Ld.
Counsel for appellant and Ld. Counsel for appellant has filed the reply
of the same and has submitted that he has moved this application after
came into notice that a fraud has been played by the respondent no. 1
with the court and obtained the order on the application under Order XII
Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC, whereby eviction order has been passed
against the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg KUMAR Date: Page no. 19 of 24
2025.07.26
16:08:25
+0530
the case law S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath ,
Civil Appeal No. 994 of 1972 decided on 27.10.1993 by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, whereby it has been held that
“Litigant should approach to the court to submit the
documents executed by him which are relevant to the
litigation. If he withhold a vital documents in order to
gain advantage in the suit, then he would be guilty of
playing fraud on the court as well as of the opposite
party.”
15. The facts as mentioned in the said case law are altogether
different from the facts as mentioned in this appeal and before Ld. Trial
Court. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the case law
titled as Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5239
of 2002 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in that case law,
it is held that
“The parties to the court should approach with clean
hands and has to bring all the material true facts and if
there is concealment then it is fraud with the court as
well as with the parties concerned.”
16. The facts in the said case are also entirely different with the fact
in this appeal. Moreover, it is the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPAL OF LAW
that one should approach to the court with clean hands and if any fraud
came to the knowledge of the court brought by any of the party, then the
party has the right to unearth the fraud against the opposite party and if
some fraud has been played, then the action is warranted against the
other party, who has mislead the facts of the case and has played fraud
with the court, but before the Ld. Trial court, no fraud has been played
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 20 of 24
2025.07.26
16:08:30
+0530
by the plaintiff/respondent nor any fraud has been played by the
respondent/plaintiff in this appeal inasmuch as, they have brought to the
knowledge of this court that they have purchased the property from the
erstwhile owner and if a sale deed is executed on 20.12.2023 by the
erstwhile owner in favour of the vendee and on the same day, GPA/SPA
to file a suit was executed then that it does not mean that there is
concealment of facts or some concealment/fraud has been played with
the court by the vendor as well as the vendee.
17. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the status of the appellant
in the suit property i.e. 307/1/72B, Shahzada Bagh, Extension, Daya
Basti, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-110035 is only of tenant and Ld. Trial
Court has rightly passed the impugned order by exercise the power
under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC inasmuch as the rent of the shop is Rs.
5000/- and the same has been paid regularly by the appellant/tenant to
the landlord starting from 28.08.2017 till 17.01.2022. The
appellant/defendant has admitted that he had paid rent of Rss. 5000/- per
month to the respondent/plaintiff/erstwhile owner. This court is of the
considered view that there is no irregularity or illegality in the
impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court dated 23.11.2024 and Ld.
Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with the
provisions of law. It is worth mentioning that with the consent of the
parties, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre by this Court on
dated 03.05.2025 and settlement has also been arrived between the
parties in the Mediation Centre on dated 05.05.2025 in the presence of
Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg
KUMAR Date: Page no. 21 of 24
2025.07.26
16:08:40
+0530
the Ld. Counsel for appellant, who had initially filed this appeal and
after issuance of notice to the opposite party, he has moved the
application under Section 151 CPC and only after hearing the
submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant and in the absence of the
respondent, this court has considered the application under Section 151
CPC and the proceedings of the Ld. Trial Court has been stayed in the
absence of the respondent. The settlement proceedings were held in the
mediation centre between the parties in the presence of the respective
counsel for both parties and Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey, who has filed this
appeal and has moved the application under Section 151 CPC, whereby
this Court has stayed the proceedings of Ld. Trial Court vide order dated
06.03.2025 has take part in the settlement proceedings before Mediation
Centre.
18. It is very surprising that after settlement arrived between the
parties in mediation centre in the presence of their respective counsel,
the respondent appeared in the court on dated 13.05.2025 with DD of
Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the appellant and the appellant had to hand
over the vacant and physical possession of the shop with keys of the
shop to the respondent, but the appellant remained absent on 13.05.2025
and engaged a new counsel, who appeared in the court and moved the
application under Section 379 of BNSS-23 (Old Section 340 Cr.PC) and
the notice of the said application was served upon the
respondent/plaintiff. Though the rejoinder was not required, but just to
delay the proceedings of this appeal, the counsel for appellant has filed
Digitally signed
by SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 22 of 24
Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.26
16:08:44
+0530
the rejoinder to the reply of his application under Section 379 of
BNSS-23 (Old Section 340 Cr.PC).
19. That, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for appellant that terms and
conditions of the settlement arrived between the parties in the mediation
centre have not been duly explained to the appellant, is immaterial and
cannot be substantiated in the eyes of law and it appears that these are
the delay tactics just to delay the proceedings of this appeal and if the
Court consider the submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant then the
very purpose of Mediation Centre and the settlement arrived between
the parties would defeated and as per the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter titled as Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. , Civil
Appeal No. 6000 of 2010, passed by Hon’ble Justice R. V. Raveendran
and Hon’ble Justice J. M. Panchal dated 26.07.2010 “the settlement
arrived between the parties in the Mediation Centre is as good as
decree”. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and law
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said judgment
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co.
(P) Ltd. & Ors., this court is of the considered view that settlement has
already been arrived between the parties in the mediation centre and
both parties are duty bound to honour the settlement arrived in the
mediation centre. Therefore, the appeal appears to be meritless. Hence,
the same is dismissed. Digitally
signed by
SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:08:47
+0530RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 23 of 24
20. However, as per the settlement arrived between the parties in
the mediation centre, the appellant is directed to handover the vacant
peaceful physical possession as well as keys of the suit property i.e.
shop bearing no. 307/1/72B, Shahzada Bagh, Extension, Daya Basti,
Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-110035 to the respondent no. 1 and the
respondent no. 1 is directed to handover the cheque/DD of Rs.
4,00,000/- to the appellant.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court. Digitally signed
by SATISH
SATISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26
16:08:52 +0530Pronounced in the open Court (Satish Kumar)
on 26th July, 2025 District Judge-13 (Central)
This Hazari Courts, Delhi.
RCA DJ No. 26/25 Chottey Lal Pandey Vs. Naresh Garg Page no. 24 of 24