Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XII, r.6 – Judgment on admission – Respondents-plaintiffs case that appellant no.2defendant approached them for sale of suit property and the franchisee rights in respect of the running business of a automobile company ‘T’– Respondents alleged that the appellant company concluded the agreement for sale of the suit schedule property and the running business for a total consideration of Rs.55.50 crores – It is further alleged that respondents had paid an amount of Rs. 5 crores i.e. Rs. 2 crore by cheque and Rs. 3 Crore by cash to the appellants – Dispute arose between the parties – Respondents filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Appellantsdefendants raised preliminary objections stating that respondents had forged/fabricated, the agreement to sell – While opposing the reliefs, appellants admitted that although an agreement was entered into with the respondents for the sale of land, but the said contract was never crystallized, as the nature, extent and various clauses were not finalised – Appellants also disputed receipt of Rs. 3 crores, which was allegedly paid by the respondents by way of cash – Respondent filed application u/Or.XII, r.6 – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application u/Or.XII, r.6 – However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge and allowed the application – On appeal, held: Mere admission of entering into arrangement/agreement cannot be termed as a categorical and unconditional admission for the purpose of delivering judgment by allowing the application filed u/Or.XII, r.6 – Such admissions were erroneously treated as categorical and unconditional admissions by the Division Bench of High Court for disposal of the application u/Or. XII, r.6 – Further, suit was filed on 01.11.2006 and the application u/Or.XII, r.6 was filed on 09.02.2007 – In the year 2010 issues, additional issues were framed and trial also commenced – In that view of the matter, there was no reason to pass order now u/Or.XII, r.6 at this stage – In view of the serious factual disputes and the defence of the appellants in the suit, it is not permissible for making roving inquiry for disposal of the application filed u/Or. XII, r.6 of CPC – When the trial has already commenced, it is desirable to record findings on various contentious issues and disputes in the suit on merits by appreciating evidence but at the same time there is no reason or justification to decree the suit at this stage – For the aforesaid reasons, that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside and the order of the Single Judge of the High Court restored. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By applying the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the various judgments, it is to be held that there are no categorical and unconditional admissions, as claimed by the respondents-plaintiffs. In view of the stand of the appellants that, the pages 3 and 4 of the agreement dated 3.5.2005 are tampered and their signatures are fabricated, when specific issue is already framed, it cannot be said that there are categorical and unconditional admissions by the appellants. Mere admission of entering into arrangement/contract itself cannot be considered in isolation, without considering the further objections of the appellants that certain pages in the agreement are fabricated. In case the appellants prove that the agreement is fabricated as claimed, post trial it goes to the root of the case on the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs. [Para 33][840-G-H; 841-A-B]
2. In this case it is to be noted that the suit was filed on 1.11.2006 and written statement was filed on 25.01.2007 and the application under Order XII, Rule 6 was filed on 9.2.2007. In the year 2010 issues and additional issues were framed and trial is also commenced. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to pass the impugned order now for decreeing the suit on claimed admissions, in exercise of power under Order XII, rule 6 of CPC at this stage. In view of the serious factual disputes and the defence of the appellants in the suit, it is not permissible for making roving inquiry for disposal of the application filed under Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC. When the trial is already commenced, it is desirable to record findings on various contentious issues and disputes in the suit on merits by appreciating evidence but at the same time there is no reason or justification to decree the suit at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. [Para 37][842-E-G]
3. Further, it is also to be noted that the suit is for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The relief sought is equitable and discretionary relief. The readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiffs to execute the document is to be pleaded and proved. At first instance, in the plaint filed on 1.11.2006 there was no such averment at all. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, interlocutory application was filed on 20.3.2007 to incorporate the plea of readiness and willingness on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs in the plaint, which was allowed subsequently. The readiness and willingness on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs cannot be inferred merely on the ground that they have deposited the balance amount after the impugned order is passed. Even in absence of refusal of the application for amendment of written statement, it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to prove that they were willing and ready to perform the contract, to claim the equitable relief of specific performance. In the judgment relied on by the appellants in the case of Aniglase Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Ors., this Court has held that the basic principle behind Section 16(c) read with Explanation (ii) of the Specific Relief Act, is that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has further held that the court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking relief. The said judgment of this Court also supports the plea of the appellants herein. [Para 38][842-H; 843-A-E; 844-A]
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the High Court fell in error in passing the impugned judgment, decreeing the suit by delivering the judgment on the application filed under Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. [Para 40][844-C-D]
Himani Alloys Limited v. Tata Steel Limited (2011) 15 SCC 273 : [2011] 7 SCR 60 ; S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj (2015) 9 SCC 287 : [2015] 9 SCR 179 ; Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another (1999) 8 SCC 396 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 258 ; Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and Ors.(2005) 7 SCC 534 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 440 – relied on.
Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi 2019 SCC Online SC
12 ; Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi and ors. (2011) 12 SCC 18 : [2011] 8 SCR 874 ; Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and another (2006)
6 SCC 498 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 259 ; Usha
Balashaheb Swami and ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and ors. (2007) 5 SCC 602 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR
259 ; Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR
187 ; Karam Kapahi & Ors. v. Lal Chand Public
Charitable Trust & Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 753 : [2010] 4 SCR 422 ; Usha Rectifier Corporation (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (2011)
11 SCC 571 : [2011] 1 SCR 347 ; Basant Singh v. Janki Singh & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 341 : [1967] SCR 1 ;
Vijaya Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura 2007 (142) DLT
483 ; Rajiv Srivastava v. Sanjiv Tuli and another AIR 2005 Delhi 319 ; Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai and others (2007) 14 SCC 63 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 855 ; Ultramatix Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Ors. (2007) 4 Mh.L.J. 847 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.