Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sheikh Abedin vs Iqbal Ahmed on 7 May, 2026
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19868/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2022
in RSA No.92/2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
SHEIKH ABEDIN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
IQBAL AHMED & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 166493/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 07-05-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR
Mr. Mohd. Hasibuddin, Adv.
Mr. Surya Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv.
Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Raj, Adv.
Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Delhi dated 22.09.2022 in Regular Second Appeal
No.92/2022 preferred by the petitioner before us by which the
Second Appeal came to be dismissed by the High Court thereby
affirming the original judgment and decree passed by the trial
Signature Not Verified
court and also the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate
Digitally signed by
NEHA GUPTA
Date: 2026.05.08
15:57:01 IST
Reason:
Court.
1
2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondents
(original plaintiffs) before us instituted Civil Suit No.1162/2019
in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, South District, Saket Court,
New Delhi for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to
an open plot of land bearing No.P-229 out of Khasra No.431/260 Joga
Bai Extension, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Batla House, New
Delhi ad measuring 260 Sq. Yards.
3. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the subject plot
was purchased by them from one Shri Dilbar Husain Malik by way of a
General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit
respectively dated 27.11.2000 for a total sale consideration of
Rs.80,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the appellant before us
was appointed as a caretaker / Chowkidar of the subject plot.
According to the plaintiffs, the petitioner was permitted to stay
in the suit property so that the property could also be taken care
of. When time came for the petitioner (defendant) to vacate, he
declined and that led to the filing of the suit praying for the
following reliefs:-
“a) To declare that General Power of Attorney, agreement
to sell, affidavit, receipt and will dated: 09.07.1996
in respect of the suit property executed by Shri Dilawar
Husain Mallik in favour of Shaikh Abidin are
invalid/void and nonest/illegal.
b) To permanently restrain the defendants from raising
any construction over the suit property i.e. plot
bearing No. P-229 out of khasra No. 431/260 Joga Bai
Extension, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar, Okhla batla House,
New Delhi.
2
c) To permanently restrain the defendants and their
agents from creating any third party interest in respect
of the suit property i.e. plot bearing No. P-229 out of
khasra No.431/260 Joga Bai, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar,
Okhla batla House, New Delhi.
d) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble
Court deem, fit and proper in the above said facts and
circumstances.”
4. In the Civil Suit instituted by the plaintiffs, an application
came to be preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”). In the said application,
the plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs:-
“A) Allow the present application and pass a decree of
mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and
direct the defendant to remove all his belongings and
handed over the possession of the plot No- P-229, Khasra
No. 43/260, Joga Bai Extension, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar,
Okhla, Batla House, New Delhi in the interest of
justice.
Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.”
5. On the strength of the application preferred by the plaintiffs
under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Civil Court proceeded to
pass the final decree vide order dated 16.10.2020. The operative
part of the order passed by the trial court reads thus:-
3
“8. Thus, in view of the above mentioned judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, plaintiff being the
caretaker of the suit property has no right, title and
interest in the same and his possession cannot be
allowed to continue indefinitely & cannot be protected
as such. The filling of the present suit by the
plaintiff is sufficient notice to the defendant to
vacate the suit premises. However, it is a matter of
record that the same has not been handed over to the
plaintiff.
9. Plaintiff is, thus, entitled to a decree as prayed
for in clause “A” of the plaint. Therefore, the suit of
the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed and the defendant
is directed to hand over the peaceful and vacant
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and to
remove his belonging from the same within one month from
today. Application is hereby allowed. Reader is directed
to prepare the decree sheet accordingly.”
6. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the order passed by
the trial court referred to above, went before the District Court
by way of Regular Civil Appeal No.65/2020. The First Appeal also
came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29.04.2022.
While dismissing the First Appeal, the First Appellate Court
observed thus:-
“12. Coming to the merits of the case, the plaintiffs
filed the suit for mandatory injunction and mesne profit
for possession of the suit land. The case of the
plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the
suit land vide documents i.e. agreement to sell, power
of attorney, receipt and possession letter and defendant
has been shown to be caretaker/chowkidar in the same.
The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed qua relief of
possession vide impugned order on their application
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission
made in the complaint dated 28.07.2009 qua which FIR
bearing no. 178/2009 was registered. During the course
of trial, the said complaint was exhibited in the
testimony of defendant as Ex. PW-3/A. In the said
complaint, the defendant had admitted the ownership of
the plaintiffs qua the suit land in clear terms and also
admitted his status as that of caretaker/chowkidar in4
the same. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that “…
Perusal of the certified copy of said complaint i.e. Ex.
PW3A (exhibited in the present case as Ex. PW1/A
(colly.)) shows that the defendant had categorically
stated that he had been staying in Jhuggi on the
aforementioned suit property and that the suit property
belonged to plaintiff Iqbal Ahmad and that the defendant
had been taking care of the suit property at the
instance of his brother i.e. plaintiff no. 2 Mujeeb
Ahmad. Thus, from the said complaint it is apparent that
the defendant is only a licensee/chowkidar/caretaker in
the suit property.”CONCLUSION
13. In view of abovesaid reasons, it is hereby held
that Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
material placed on record. The Court does not find any
infirmity or irregularity in the reasoning given vide
order dated 16.10.2020. Consequently, the appeal against
the order dated 16.10.2020 is hereby dismissed. The
order dated 16.10.2020 passed by Ld. Trial court is
hereby affirmed.”
7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the
First Appellate Court, the petitioner went before the High Court by
way of Second Appeal. The Second Appeal also came to be dismissed
vide the impugned judgment and order. While dismissing the Second
Appeal, the High Court took notice of the admissions made by the
petitioner in the criminal proceedings and observed as under:-
“26. In the present case, learned Counsel for the
appellant does not dispute the fact that, in the
complaint dated 29th July 2009 lodged by him at PS.
Jamia Nagar, which resulted in the registration of FIR
178/2009. The appellant had indeed acknowledged the suit
property to be owned by Respondent 1 and that he had
been inducted into the suit property by Respondent 2 as
caretaker. This admission finds place in the complaint
as well as in the FIR. During the course of regarding
of evidence in the criminal proceedings, following the
FIR, the appellant, as PW-3, specifically admitted the
fact of filing the aforesaid complaint by him at police
station Jamia Nagar on 27th August 2009, resulting in5
the complaint being exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. It is not
the case of the appellant that, during the course of
recording of the said evidence, there was any denial of
the contents of the said FIR.
27. Inasmuch as considerable reliance has been placed
by Mr. Chaurasia as well as by the appellant before the
learned ADJ on the examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of the appellant, as PW-3, in the criminal
proceedings, which followed FIR 178/2009, I have
minutely perused the said examination-in-chief and
cross-examination. There is not a whisper of an
averment, anywhere in the examination-in-chief or cross-
examination, denying the ownership of Respondent 1 over
the suit property or the induction of the appellant in
the suit property, as a caretaker by Respondent 2.
28. All that Mr. Chaurasia would seek to rely upon, in
the said record of cross-examination, is a voluntary
statement made by the appellant during the cross-
examination to the effect that he “had signed papers
which police did not read over to me.”
29. There is a world of difference between asserting
that the FIR had not been read over to him by the police
and denying the contents of the FIR or the assertions
contained therein. Interestingly, the record of cross-
examination does not even seek to state that the
appellant was not conversant with the language in which
the complaint or the FIR was written, as Mr. Chaurasia
would seek to contend before this Court.
30. In that view of the matter, the mere statement
that the police had not read over the papers to the
appellant cannot amount denial, by the appellant, of the
correctness of the contents of the complaint or,
consequently, of the contents of FIR 178/2009.
31. In any event, these are matters which reside in
the realm of appreciation of evidence. The appellant
had, clearly and in no uncertain terms, admitted, in the
complaint lodged by him at P.S. Jamia Nagar, that
Respondent 1 was the owner of the suit property and that
the appellant had been inducted in the suit property by
Respondent 2 as a caretaker.
32. No fault, therefore, can be found either with the
learned SCJ or with the learned ADJ for relying upon the
said admissions in order to partly decree the suit under
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, qua the aspect of
possession.
6
33. The factum of ownership of the suit property by
Respondent 1 and of the appellant being in occupation of
the suit property merely as a Caretaker at the instance
of Respondent 2 having thus been admitted, once
Respondent 1 had terminated the licence under which the
appellant continued to occupy the suit property, there
was no justification for the appellant to continue in
such occupation.” (Emphasis supplied)
8. In such circumstances referred to above, the petitioner is
also before us with the present petition.
9. We heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, learned AOR appearing for
the petitioner – original defendant and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents – original plaintiffs.
10. We take notice of the order passed by this Court dated
18.11.2022. The same reads thus:-
“Issue notice returnable within six weeks.
Further proceedings in Execution case No. 53 of
2021 titled as “Iqbal Ahmed Vs. Sheikh Abidin” pending
in the Court of ASCJ, South East, Saket Court, New
Delhi, shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing.”
11. Thus, it appears that while issuing notice, this Court stayed
the further proceedings in Execution Case No.53/2021.
12. The entire debate revolves around the question whether the
courts-below were justified to decree the suit in favour of the
plaintiffs on the strength of the admission made by the petitioner
in the course of the criminal proceedings and whether the trial
court was justified to pass the final decree based on admission
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
13. Rule 6(1) of Order XII CPC reads as under:-
7
“Rule 6. (1) Where admissions of fact have been made
either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in
writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit either on
the application of any party or of its own motion and
without waiting for the determination of any other
question between the parties, make such order or give
such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such
admissions.”
14. A decree can be passed under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC on the
basis of an admission, whether it is contained in the pleadings or
elsewhere. Such an admission may be in writing or may even be oral.
No particular form of admission is necessary.
15. The purport of Rule 6 Order XII CPC is to enable the party to
obtain speedy justice to the extent of the relevant admission
which, according to the admission of the other party, he is
entitled for. Admission on which judgment can be claimed must be
clear and unequivocal one and such admission must be either of the
entire claim made in the suit or even for a party of the claim for
which decree can be passed separately. The requirement, prior to
Code of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1977, for filing an
application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC stands waived and under the
amended provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court on its motion
and without an application by a party can proceed to pass a decree
on an admission.
16. In the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank
of India, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120, this Court held as
follows:-
8
“In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending Rule 6
of Order 12 CPC 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.’The Supreme Court should not unduly narrow down the
meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party
to obtain speedy judgment.”
17. On the aspect of admission on the part of the petitioner,
three courts have assigned cogent reasons. We need not disturb the
concurrent findings recorded by the three courts-below in this
regard.
18. Hence, Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The execution
proceedings shall now proceed further expeditiously in accordance
with law.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEHA GUPTA) (POOJA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
9
[ad_1]
Source link
