Delhi High Court – Orders
Upasana Gupta vs Sh Ashok Kumar Gupta And Anr on 9 July, 2026
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 1172/2024, I.A. 49302/2024 & I.A. 26932/2025
UPASANA GUPTA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rachit Gupta and Mr. Kuldeep
Kumar, Advocates
versus
SH ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR .....Defendants
Through: Mr. B.S. Bagga, Mr. G.C. Shukla, Mr.
Yash Sethi and Ms. Aastha Trehan,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 09.07.2026
I.A. 3312/2026 (Under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC))
1. This is an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as “CPC“) filed on behalf of the
plaintiff seeking judgment on admission of liability of Rs.50,00,000/-.
2. After alluding to the brief background of the suit, learned counsel for the
plaintiff submits that there is an unequivocal admission by the defendant in
their written statement whereby the defendant has admitted to having received
Rs.1,40,00,000/- from the plaintiff and that a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- has been
returned by way of cheque to the plaintiff. He states that apart from that, the
defendant has also admitted to be willing, at that point in time, to pay the
remaining amount of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3. Learned counsel states that without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties in the suit regarding the remaining amounts to be
recovered from the defendants, this Court may be pleased to pass a decree in
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 1 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
respect of the amount admitted.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants refutes the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He draws attention of this Court
to the preliminary objections raised by the defendants to submit that the written
statement has to be read holistically and harmoniously and plaintiff is not
permitted in law to pick up certain portions in the written statement to seek
judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
5. In particular, he draws attention of this Court to para nos.2 and 3 of the
preliminary objections as also para nos. 3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions
in the written statement in support of his contentions. He also draws attention
of this Court to the document filed alongwith written statement, in particular
page nos. 25 and 26 of the defendants’ documents, which are, (i) reply to the
notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as “Cr.PC“) and (ii) Action Taken Report filed by the
IO in respect of CC NI ACT/10020/2023 titled “Upasana Gupta v. Nilesh
Gupta” pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
(NI Act), Digital Court-01, South Saket Courts, New Delhi. Learned counsel
pertinently points out to the reply of the notice under Section 91 of the Cr. PC
to submit that the Notary Public had refuted the stand of the plaintiff that the
Agreement to Sale and Purchase dated 08.06.2022 was ever notarized by him.
6. Learned counsel also submits that the IO in the case filed by the
defendant has also submitted an Action Taken Report giving his opinion that
the Agreement to Sale dated 08.06.2022 and the extension to the Agreement to
Sale dated 28.12.2022 stated to have been executed between the complainant
and the plaintiff were not notarized, relying upon the reply to the notice under
Section 91 of the Cr.PC of the Notary Public in question therein.
7. He submits that it is clear that the plaintiff is a habitual offender, who is
stated to be facing several similar criminal cases for similar offences. He states
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 2 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
that therefore, a mere statement of the defendant in their written statement may
not be sufficient for this Court to draw a conclusion that there is an unequivocal
admission on behalf of the defendants for payment of any sum, muchless
Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff.
8. This Court has considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties.
9. Before we avert to the facts which have arisen in this case, it is pertinent
to consider the law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in respect
of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. Union
Bank of India & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 120 and Hari Steel & Gen. Industries vs.
Daljit Singh, 2019 (20) SCC 425, whereby in respect of the aforesaid context,
it was succinctly laid down as under:
Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India,
(2000) 7 SCC 120
“12. As to the object of Order 12 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 the 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.
xxx xxx xxx
16. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this
Court in Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593 : 1956 SCR
451] as to when an admission becomes relevant. Nagubai Ammal [AIR
1956 SC 593 : 1956 SCR 451] , which is locus classicus on the subject,
states that merely because a written admission is made in a different
context, such admission may not become relevant if the party making it
has a reasonable explanation for that…
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 3 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admissions
referred to in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC should be of the same nature as other
admissions referred to in other rule preceding this Rule. Admissions
generally arise when a statement is made by a party in any of the modes
provided under Sections 18 to 23 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Admissions
are of many kinds; they may be considered as being on the record as
actual if they are either in the pleadings or in answer to interrogatories
or implied from the pleadings by non-traversal. Secondly, as between
parties by agreement or notice. Since we have considered that admission
for passing the judgment is based on pleadings itself it is unnecessary to
examine as to what kinds of admissions are covered by Order 12 Rule 6
CPC.”
Hari Steel & Gen. Industries v. Daljit Singh, 2019 (20) SCC
425:
“25. In the judgment in Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. , nature
and scope of Order 12 Rule 6 has been considered by this Court. In the
aforesaid judgment this Court has held that the discretion conferred
under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to be exercised judiciously, keeping in
mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which
permanently denies any remedy to the defendant. Para 11 of the
judgment read as under:
“11. It is true that a judgment can be given on an
“admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the
admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious
and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an
intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an
enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory
but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and
circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion,
keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment
without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the
defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless
the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the
discretion of the court should not be exercised to deny the
valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. In short
the discretion should be used only when there is a clear
“admission” which can be acted upon. (See also Uttam
Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India , Karam
Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Jeevan
Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha). There is
no such admission in this case.”
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 4 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
26. In the judgment in S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj, this Court has
held that the power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and
cannot be claimed as a right. It is further held in the aforesaid case that
where the defendants have raised objections, which go to the root of the
case, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion under Order 12
Rule 6 CPC. Para 8 of the judgment read as under:
“8. The words in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC “may” and “make
such order …” show that the power under Order 12 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 12 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.”
27. In the judgment in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, while considering
the scope of Order 8 Rule 10 and Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, this Court has
held that the court is not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made
by the defendant in the written statement nor should the court proceed to
pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been
filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the
plaint filed in the court.
28. In the aforesaid judgment, while considering the scope of Order 12
Rule 6 CPC, post amendment by amending Act, 1976 this Court has held
as under:
“21. There is yet another provision under which it is possible
for the court to pronounce judgment on admission. This is
contained in Rule 6 of Order 12 which provides as under:
“6. Judgment on admissions.–(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. (2) Whenever a judgment is
pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn
up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall
bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 5 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
22. This rule was substituted in place of the old rule by the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. The Objects
and Reasons for this amendment are given below: „Under
Rule 6, where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to
enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on the
admitted claim. The object of the rule is to enable a 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 rule is wide enough to cover oral
admissions. The rule is being amended to clarify that oral
admissions are also covered by the rule.
23. Under this rule, the court can, at an interlocutory stage of
the proceedings, pass a judgment on the basis of admissions
made by the defendant. But before the court can act upon the
admission, it has to be shown that the admission is
unequivocal, clear and positive. This rule empowers the court
to pass judgment and decree in respect of admitted claims
pending adjudication of the disputed claims in the suit.”
10. This Court has perused the contents of the written statement very
carefully. The plaintiff had drawn attention of this Court to para 7 of the
preliminary submissions of the written statement, which is extracted
hereunder:-
“7. That in May 2023 defendant no. 1, returned Rs. 90 lakhs by way of
cheque to the plaintiff’s and defendant no. 1 told them to take remaining
amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) from defendant no. 1,
the plaintiff and her husband denied and threatened defendant no. 1 that
they will implicate defendants in false cases. Thereafter on 10.05.2023
defendant no.1 had sold his property to M/s. Aastha Bansal. That Sh.
Dinesh Gupta had also stolen some signed blank cheques of defendants,
for which defendants has also filed complaint against plaintiff & her
husband.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had also invited attention of this Court
to para 6(x) and 10 of the parawise reply on merits of the written statement,
which are extracted hereunder:-
“6(x). That the contents of para 6(x) of the suit filed by the plaintiff are
wrong and denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff and
her husband confronted the Defendants, they admitted that they haveCS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 6 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
caused wrongful loss to Plaintiff by fraudulently misleading Plaintiff to
part with their hard-earned money and agreed to repay the amount of Rs.
2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs Only) which was paid as
part of consideration amount subsequent thereto, defendants returned a
sum of Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Only) in the month if May,
2023 and sought some time to repay the rest of the amount. It is submitted
that plaintiff has put to strict proof of the same as defendants had not
promised to repay the amount of Rs. 2.5 crore. It is submitted that the
defendant no.1 has promised to repay the amount he received i.e.
1,40,00,000/- and not 2 crore and out of which Rs. 90 Lakhs had been
already paid by the defendants.
xxx xxx xxx
10. That the contents of para 10 of the suit filed by the plaintiff are
wrong and denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the defendants
up to now are liable to pay Rs. 2,12,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Twelve
Lakhs Only) Calculationa) Principle Amount – Rs. 1,60,00,000/- b)
Interest @ 15% P.A.- Rs. 52,00,000/- (from September, 2022 till
November, 2024 on principle amount) Total (A+B) Rs. 1,84,00,000/-. It is
submitted that the defendant no. 1 has only received Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (one
crore forty lakh) out of which he has already received Rs. 90,00,000/-
(Ninety Lakh).
(emphasis supplied)
12. In contradistinction thereto, learned counsel for the defendants had
drawn attention of this Court to para nos. 2 and 3 of the preliminary objections,
which are extracted hereunder:-
“2. That the forged document agreement to sell & purchase dated
08.06.2022, and forged receipt dated 03.07.2022, 30.08.2022, 27.09.2022
and forged extension of agreement to sell dated 28.12.2022 all are forged
documents by the plaintiff created to file the present suit and just to harass
the defendants. Therefore the present suit is not maintainable. On this
grounds too the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the defendant had already paid an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/-
(Rupees Ninety Lakhs Only) out of Rs.1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Forty Lakhs Only) to the plaintiff. As the cash of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore Ten Lakhs Only) against which forged receipts had been
prepared by the plaintiff, were never paid to defendants. Hence on this
ground also the present fabricated suit is not maintainable.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. In support of his further contentions, learned counsel has also invited
attention of this Court to para nos. 3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions,
which too are extracted hereunder:-
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 7 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
“3. That in June 2022, both the parties agreed and enter into a partnership
agreement which was executed between defendant no. 1 and husband of the
plaintiff later on. That one-day Sh. Dinesh Gupta has advised defendant no.
1 that from the current business they will be unable to repay the loan and
defendant should sell their property and repay the loan otherwise the loan
will keep on increasing and even Dinesh Gupta told defendant no. 1 that
husband of plaintiff will help defendant no. 1 in selling their property at a
good price. The true copy of partnership deed dated 25.06.2022 is being
placed on record.
4. That defendant no. 1 got ready to sell his property and after some days
Sh. Dinesh Gupta informed that Sh. Dinesh Gupta is having one client who
is ready to buy the property of defendant no. 1 at Rs. 2 crore 50 lakh, but
after some days, Sh. Dinesh Gupta told buyer has backed off, but still Sh.
Dinesh Gupta ensured defendants that Sh. Dinesh Gupta will help
defendant no. 1 to sell his property at Rs. 2 crore 50 lakh. However, after
some days in June/July, 2022 Sh. Dinesh Gupta transferred Rs. 1 Crore 40
lakhs from his wife’s account to defendant no. 1 a/c, when defendant no. 1
asked about why the money is coming from your wife’s A/c on this Sh.
Dinesh Gupta told defendant no. 1 that the defendant no. 1 has nothing to
do from where the money is coming as defendant no. 1 has just to sell the
same.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Learned counsel for the defendants also relied upon para nos. 8, 9 and 10
of the preliminary submission of the written statement in support of his
contentions. The same read thus:
“8. That the defendants who received a Legal Notice dated 30.09.2023
sent by the plaintiff to defendants, came to know about the whole plan of
plaintiff and her husband as they just want to extract the money from the
defendants. Thereafter the defendant no. 2 filed a complaint dated
10.10.2023 with SHO, P.S. Mehrauli on 07.12.2023 with the D.C.P South
and thereafter a case being C.T. No. 2344/2023 under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was filed on 11.12.2023 which is also pending against the
plaintiff. That the true copy of complaint dated 10.10.2023 to SHO,
07.12.2023 to DCP and case no. 2344/2023 before the court are being
placed on record.
9. That thereafter the IO has given a notice dated 19.12.2023 to Notary
Public Sh. Subash Chand Sharma on which he has on 21.12.2023, replied
under section 91 CrPC has been given by Subash Chand Sharma
(Advocate Notary Regn. No. 074/06), which clearly shows in reply that
notary registration that the Agreement to sell and purchase dated
08.06.2022 is bogus and fabricated, as Notary seal was stolen on
24.12.2021 and complaint was also lodged regarding the same with PS
Mehrauli. That the true copy of reply dated 21.12.2023 is being placed onCS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 8 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
record.
10. That thereafter on 02.02.2024 the Action Taken Report (ATR) was filed
by SI Sandeep Kumar, P.S. Mehrauli, it is clearly written in the ATR that
the agreement to dated 28.12.2022 executed between defendant and
alleged Dinesh Gupta were not notarized by Subhash Chand (Notary
Office). That the true copy of ATR dated 02.02.2024 is being placed on
record.”
15. Learned counsel for the defendants, apart from the aforesaid paragraphs,
had also invited attention of this Court to the defendants’ documents
particularly document no.5, which is reply of the notice under Section 91 Cr.PC
submitted by the Notary Public, who is alleged to have notarized the
Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated 08.06.2022, furnished by the plaintiff.
16. Learned counsel had submitted that the aforesaid reply was also taken
note of by the IO in the Action Taken Report, filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Digital Court-01, South Saket Courts, New
Delhi, to contend that having regard to the opinion of the IO of plaintiff’s
dubious character and forged documents, the issues raised by the defendants
may require trial before any order is passed.
17. This Court is unable to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel
for the defendant. This is for the reason that if one were to apply the principles
and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal (supra),
the statement of the defendant in para 7 and in para 10 itself would be sufficient
for this Court to pass a decree atleast on the admitted balance amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- as against the defendants. It is interesting to also note that
though the learned counsel for the defendant relies upon para nos.2 and 3 of the
preliminary objections, however, para 3 also clearly indicates that the
defendants had admitted that he has already paid an amount of 90,00,000/- out
of 1,40,00,000/-, which only means that the balance amount of the admitted
amount is around Rs.50,00,000/-.
18. That apart, even in para 4 of the preliminary submissions of the Written
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 9 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
Statement, the defendant has, inter alia, stated, “However, after some days in
June/July, 2022, Shri Dinesh Gupta, transferred Rs.1 Crore 40 Lakhs from his
wife’s account to defendant no.1 a/c, when defendant no.1 asked about why the
money is coming from your wife’s a/c, on this Sh. Dinesh Gupta told defendant
no.1 that the defendant no.1 has nothing to do from where the money is coming
as defendant no.1 has just to sell the same”.
19. The principles governing Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC in this case are
squarely applicable for the reasons that there is undoubtedly an admission not
only to the receipt of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and return of Rs.90,000/- but an
assertion that the defendant was at least at that point in time ready and willing
to refund sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff.
20. That apart, as noted above, in multiple paragraphs, the defendant has
reiterated the admission. Looking at it cumulatively and holistically, this Court
has no doubt that there is a clear, categorical and unequivocal admission by the
defendant in respect of the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.50,000/-.
21. The contention based on the reply of notice under Section 91 Cr.PC as
also the Action Taken Report submitted by the IO before the concerned
Magistrate in the case pending before learned JFMC, Saket Court, by the
defendant is concerned, the same may be a matter of trial, however, shall not, in
any way whatsoever, change or alter the admission made in the written
statement. The written statement supported by the affidavit of the defendant
and is clearly unequivocal. This Court, at this moment in time, does not doubt
the credibility of the statement made by the defendant in the written statement.
22. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present
application may be allowed. Ordered accordingly.
23. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as against
the defendants.
24. Let a decree sheet be drawn up in above terms.
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 10 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
25. Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 26932/2025 (Seeking directions to Income Tax Department)
26. This is an application under Section 151 of the CPC filed on behalf of the
defendants seeking intimation to Income Tax Department, Office, Civic Centre
Press Enclave, Ajmeri Gate-110002 about the admission and assertion made by
the plaintiff about having made payments in cash allegedly to the defendants in
various tranches to the tune of Rs.1,10,00,000/- on 21.07.2022, 30.08.2022 and
21.09.2022.
27. The defendants also rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The
Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institutionvs. B. Gunashekar &
Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5200 of 2025 passed on 16.04.2025, to state that the
Supreme Court had categorically noted in the penultimate directions that
whenever a suit is filed with a claim that Rs.2,00,000/- or more is paid in cash
towards any transaction, the Court must intimate the same to the jurisdictional
Income Tax Department to verify such transactions and verify the violation of
Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
28. List for hearing of I.A.26932/2025 and also for framing of issues on
13.10.2026.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 9, 2026
Sumit
CS(COMM) 1172/2024 Page 11 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 21:30:53
