Sushila Gopalan and Others vs Land and Development Office and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—Order impugned is dated 29.11.2011 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') seeking a judgment on admission had been dismissed. Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction; there are five defendants who have been arrayed; the prayer made in the suit is to the effect that a decree of mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 1 (L& DO) to quash the mutation letter dated 07.07.2005 whereby the property stands mutated in the name of L & DO by Sheela Chawla in terms of the Wills dated 15.03.1999 and 06.11.2003; further prayer is to restrain the defendants from transferring the aforenoted property in the name of any third party except to the plaintiff. Written statement had been filed. Attention has been drawn to the averments made in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 (L& DO); para 13 has been highlighted; submission being that there are certain admissions which have been made by the L & DO which qualify for a judgment on admission in terms of provisions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. The averments in para 13 of the written statement of defendant No. 1 are to the effect that the property in question has been substituted in the name of Raj Kumar Chawla vide letter dated 07.07.2005 on the basis of an affidavit, death certificate and indemnity bond furnished by the answering defendant; attention has also been drawn to the aforenoted documents. The contention of the petitioner nowhere fit into the parameters of a judgment on admission which is the provision contained in Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. In fact the averments made in the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code itself states that the denial made by the defendant in the written statement are no denial in the eyes of the law and in fact amounts to an admission. The averments made in this application nowhere fit into the parameters of the aforenoted provisions and this has been pointed out to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner time and again but he continues to make vehement submission. Reliance by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment reported in Rakesh Basra Vs. Satsagar Gupta, and Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India and Others, is misplaced; there is no doubt that if there is an unequivocal, clear and unambiguous admission, the applicant is entitled to a decree straightway on an admission; the purpose being to cut-short the litigation; there is no such admission whatsoever. The impugned judgment had noted all these facts in the correct perspective. This petition being an abuse of the process of the Court and wastage of its precious time, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.