The Delhi High Court has clarified that a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be passed merely because a defendant reproduces the plaintiff’s allegations in the written statement while formally denying them. The judgment underscores the necessity of clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admissions to justify summary judgment, reinforcing procedural safeguards against premature adjudication.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a commercial lease agreement dated 16.05.2014, executed between Shri Virender Kaushik (Defendant/Appellant) and Shri Satish Jindal (Plaintiff/Respondent), concerning Shop No. 9A at Apra Plaza, Plot No. 29, Road No. 44, Pitampura, New Delhi. The lease was for a fixed term of five years, from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2019, with a graduated rent structure and a security deposit of Rs. 2,50,000, refundable upon handover of possession and clearance of dues.
Key Facts
- The lease provided for rent escalation: Rs. 55,000/month (16.05.2014 - 15.05.2016), Rs. 60,500/month (16.05.2016 - 15.05.2017), Rs. 63,525/month (16.05.2017 - 15.05.2018), and Rs. 66,700/month (16.05.2018 - 15.05.2019).
- No rent was payable from 16.05.2014 to 30.06.2014.
- A penalty of Rs. 5,000 per day was stipulated for unauthorized occupation beyond 15.05.2019.
- The Defendant claims possession was handed over on 10.12.2020; the Plaintiff asserts it was handed over on 10.02.2021.
- The Plaintiff claimed rent arrears of Rs. 3,50,200 for the lease period (up to 15.05.2019) and Rs. 24,30,000 as damages for unauthorized occupation from 16.05.2019 to 10.02.2021, totaling Rs. 27,80,200, with 18% interest.
- The Defendant admits to making partial payments but disputes the quantum and contends rent was paid regularly at Rs. 50,000/month (after TDS deduction), except for three months during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown.
Procedural History
- 16.05.2014: Lease deed executed.
- 15.05.2019: Lease term expired.
- 10.12.2020: Defendant claims handover of possession.
- 10.02.2021: Plaintiff claims handover of possession.
- 04.11.2022: District Judge framed issues and appointed a Local Commissioner for evidence recording.
- 14.12.2023: No evidence recorded due to pending applications.
- 03.06.2024: Hearing on applications under Order XII Rule 6 and Order XIV Rule 5 CPC; matter adjourned due to counsel’s bereavement.
- 05.07.2024: In absence of Defendant’s counsel, District Judge passed decree for Rs. 24,30,000 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying on alleged admissions in the Written Statement.
- 19.09.2024: Final decree confirmed.
- 25.02.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 24.03.2026: Judgment pronounced by Delhi High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant (Defendant)
- Argued that paragraph 6 of the Written Statement was a defective, boilerplate replication of the Plaint, preceded by a clear denial.
- Contended that payments were made regularly at Rs. 50,000/month (after TDS), with a three-month gap during COVID-19 lockdown.
- Submitted that the Plaintiff accepted partial payments without objection, indicating acquiescence.
- Asserted that the LDJ erred in treating partial replication as admission.
For the Respondent (Plaintiff)
- Argued that the Defendant’s Written Statement substantially adopted the Plaint’s allegations without contradiction.
- Contended that the reproduction of figures and calculations constituted clear admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
- Maintained that the Defendant could not now resile from such admissions.
Relief Sought
The Appellant sought setting aside of the decree dated 05.07.2024 and 19.09.2024, and a direction for trial of the suit on merits. The Respondent sought confirmation of the decree.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether reproducing the plaintiff’s allegations in the written statement, while prefacing them with a general denial, constitutes a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admission sufficient to justify a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Appellant’s counsel argued that the Written Statement’s paragraph 6 was not an admission but a legally defective pleading. The Defendant explicitly denied the allegations and asserted that rent was paid regularly. The mere copying of the Plaint’s language, without affirmative assent, cannot amount to admission. Reliance was placed on Smt. Sushila Devi v. Harish Chandra and Rajesh Kumar v. Ramesh Kumar, where courts held that formal denials coupled with repetition do not constitute admission. The Defendant’s statement of accounts and ledger entries further demonstrated disputed facts requiring evidence.
For the Respondent
The Respondent’s counsel contended that the Defendant had not denied the specific figures - Rs. 3,50,200 for lease period and Rs. 24,30,000 for post-lease occupation - but had repeated them verbatim. This, according to the Respondent, amounted to tacit admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Respondent relied on Suresh Kumar v. Ramesh Kumar, where repetition of claims without contradiction was held to be admission.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous textual analysis of paragraph 6 of the Plaint and the corresponding reply in the Written Statement. It observed that while the Defendant copied the exact figures and calculations from the Plaint, the paragraph began with the phrase: “That the contents of Para 6 of the plaint are wrong and denied.” This was followed by the identical language, concluding with: “It is submitted that defendant always paid his rent on time regularly and this type of litigation shall liable to be thrown out of the court to save the precious time of the court.”
"The tenor of the paragraph, when read holistically, therefore indicates that the Defendant intended to dispute the claim raised in the Plaint rather than admit the liability as alleged."
The Court emphasized that Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits decree on admission only where the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, leaving no room for doubt. The presence of a formal denial, even if poorly drafted, negates the possibility of an admission. The Court further noted that the Defendant’s ledger and the Plaintiff’s own acceptance of partial payments raised triable issues regarding the quantum of rent paid and the nature of occupation post-lease.
The Court distinguished the present case from those where a party explicitly acknowledges liability without qualification. Here, the Defendant’s conduct and pleadings indicated a genuine dispute. The LDJ’s reliance on the Written Statement to bypass evidence recording was therefore legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The Appellant succeeded. The Delhi High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2024 and 19.09.2024 passed by the District Judge. The Court directed the District Judge to proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law, including recording of evidence. The parties are to appear before the District Judge on 08.04.2026. The District Judge is permitted to revisit the issues framed on 04.11.2022 in light of the observations made. The Plaintiff may file a fresh application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if warranted. The Court clarified that its observations are prima facie and not binding on the trial court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Admission Must Be Unambiguous, Not Repetitive
- Practitioners must distinguish between mere replication of pleadings and actual admission. A formal denial, even if poorly worded, defeats a claim under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
- Courts must examine the entire written statement contextually, not isolate paragraphs.
Trial Cannot Be Bypassed on Defective Pleadings
- Where factual disputes exist - such as payment history, acceptance of partial payments, or possession dates - evidence must be recorded.
- Decrees under Order XII Rule 6 are exceptional; they cannot substitute trial.
Strategic Drafting of Written Statements
- Defendants should avoid verbatim copying of plaint allegations, even if denying them.
- Clear, separate denials with factual counter-allegations are essential to preserve the right to trial.
Practical Takeaway
- If a plaintiff seeks decree on admission, they must prove the admission is unequivocal. Mere repetition is insufficient.
- Defendants should always include explicit denials and supporting factual assertions to avoid unintended admissions.
