# HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR v. DALJIT SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 6 S.C.R. 819
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-04-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4265 of 2019
- **Bench:** R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hari-steel-and-general-industries-ltd-anr-v-daljit-singh-ors-33935
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

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
 [2019] 6 S.C.R. 819
819
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,847 of 62,137. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39847 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.
v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4265 of 2019)
APRIL 24, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
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
 [2019] 6 S.C.R. 819
819
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
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]
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 9 SCR 179
relied on
Para 16
[2011] 7 SCR 60
relied on
Para 16
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 258
relied on
Para 16
[2011] 8 SCR 874
referred to
Para 16
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 259
referred to
Para 16
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 259
referred to
Para 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
823
[2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 187
referred to
Para 18
[2010] 4 SCR 422
referred to
Para 18
[2011] 1 SCR 347
referred to
Para 19
[1967] SCR 1
referred to
Para 19
[2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 855
referred to
Para 22
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 440
relied on
Para 24
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4265
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2018 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 268 of 2017.
Ranjit Kumar, P. S. Narsimha, Sr. Advs., Manish Aggarwal,
Ms. Runul Rastogi, Ms. Snehalata Mall, Rahul G. Tanwani, V. C. Shukla,
Ms. Sindoosa VNL, Ms. Saumya Jaykaran Singh, Rishi Raj Sharma,
Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shyam Divan, R. Basant, A. S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advs.,
Mrs. Manmeet Arora, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Rishabh Bansal, Shashank
Tripathi, Keshav Sehgal, Ms. Samapika Biswas, Ms. Shruti Jose, Ashish
Dholakia, P. S. Sudheer, Rohan Chawla, Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne
Mathew, Bharat Sood,. Ms. Shruti Jose, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal is filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the
Suit in CS(OS) No.2046 of 2006, aggrieved by the judgment dated 2nd
August, 2018, in FAO (OS) No.268 of 2017, passed by the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi. By the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench
of the High Court, by setting aside the judgment dated 24.7.2017 passed
in IA No.1557 of 2007 in CS (OS) No.2046 of 2006, has allowed the
interlocutory application and consequential prayers of the respondentsplaintiffs and decreed the suit with the following directions:-
"(i) The order dated 24th July, 2017 passed by the ld. Single Judge
on I.A. No.1557/2007 in CS(OS) No.2046/2006 is hereby set
aside and quashed.
(ii) I.A.No.1557/2007 is hereby allowed and consequently the
prayers of the plaintiffs in the suit, as prayed for,are decreed.
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
(iii) The Registry shall draw up a decree sheet accordingly.
(iv) The appellants shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 50.50
Crores to the defendant no.1 within a period of three months and
15 days from today.
(v) Upon receipt of the amount, the respondents shall forthwith
execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants as well as any
other documents, as may be required. It shall be the responsibility
of the respondent no.2 to complete the formalities including
obtaining permissions, if any, from any authority of department
and ensure execution of the registered sale deed forthwith in favour
of the appellants.
(vi) In case the respondents do not accept the payment of the
amount from the appellants, the amount shall be deposited by the
appellants in CS(OS)No.2046/2006 by way of cheque in the name
of Registrar General of this court. Upon the deposit, the said
cheque shall be encashed by the Registry and the amount thereof
shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt initially for a period of
six months to be kept renewed till further orders of the ld. Single
Judge in the suit proceedings.
(vii) In such eventuality, the appellants shall be entitled to seek
appropriate remedy for execution of the judgment and decree by
appropriate proceedings by the ld. Single Judge.
(viii) Given the delay caused by the respondents in the adjudication
of the matter and their conduct before the court, the respondents
shall pay costs to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 1 Lac for each
year of the litigation w.e.f. 1st November, 2006 to July, 2018 being
a total of Rs. 11,50,000/- for the period of 11 1/2 years.
(ix) Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- each are directed to be paid to the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee; Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the Delhi International
Arbitration Centre, which shall be paid by the respondents within
15 days from today and proof of deposit shall be filed with the
Registry. The copy of the receipts shall be made available to the
appellants through counsel immediately upon the deposit.
(x) In case the respondents fail to deposit the costs as at S.no.(viii)
& (ix) above, as directed, the appellants shall be entitled to deduct
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
825
the amount of costs out of the balance sale consideration and to
deposit the costs of Rs. 1 lakh with each of the DHCLSC,
DHCMCC & the DIAC. Proof of deposit shall be sent to the
defendants.
(xi) In view of the order we are passing regarding payment up
to date costs in the suit, we are refraining from imposing further
costs on the respondents in the present appeal.
(xii) The appeal is allowed in the above terms."
3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application in I.A.
No.1557 in the aforesaid suit, filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil
Procedure Code. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - plaintiffs, have filed
the aforesaid application for judgment, on admissions claimed by them in
the suit. The order of learned Single Judge is reversed by the Division
Bench on appeal, filed by the plaintiffs, by granting reliefs as referred
above.
4. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed the above said suit praying
for decree for specific performance of agreement to sell, concluded on
7.4.2005 and further recorded on 3.5.2005 between the respondentsplaintiffs and the appellants in respect of property bearing No.A-22,
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The
plaintiffs also sought a decree of permanent injunction against the
appellants-defendants and others to restrain them from selling, transferring
or encumbering the suit property to third party and a permanent injunction
against defendant Nos. 2 to 6 from transferring or encumbering their
share holdings of 10 lakh shares in the appellant No.1/defendant No.1
company. It was the case of the plaintiffs, that the appellant No.2 herein,
as a Managing Director and principal share holder of the appellant No.1
company, approached the respondents-plaintiffs for sale of suit property
and the business carried in the name and style of 'South Delhi Toyota'
including the goodwill of the business. It is their case that on 7.4.2005,
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - plaintiffs and the first appellant company
through its Managing Director/2nd appellant have arrived at a concluded
agreement for sale of the suit schedule property, transfer of the goodwill
and franchisee rights in respect of the running business of 'South Delhi
Toyota' for a total consideration of Rs.55.50 crores. It is their further
case that pursuant to the said concluded contract on 7.4.2005, the
respondents-plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.2 crores, i.e, Rs.1 crore
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
in cash and Rs.1 crore by cheque and the said amount was acknowledged
by the appellant No.2. It is their further case that they have entered into
written agreement to sell on 3.5.2005, in pursuance of an understanding/
agreement dated 7.4.2005. The breakup of the total consideration
disclosed in the agreement is as follows:-
(i) Rs.49 crores for the purchase of the land and building bearing
No.A-22, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi.
(ii) Rs.6 crore fifty lacs for the purchase of running business of
the franchisee dealership of Toyata Kirloskar Motors Private
Limited carried on in the name and style of 'South Delhi Toyota'.
(iii) The difference in value of the assets and liabilities of the
running business, on the basis of the balance sheet agreed to be
furnished on 15.6.2005.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they have paid further
amount of Rs.3 crores on the date of written agreement of sale dated
3.5.2005 to the appellant No.1 company. In the agreement dated 3.5.2005,
the aspect of payment of part consideration is recorded as follows:
"2(a) That out of the total consideration of Rs.55.50,00,000/-
(Rs.Fifty five Crores Fifty Lacs only) the purchasers have paid to
the vendor a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rs.Five Crores only) as
part consideration; at the time of execution of this Agreement to
Sell in the following manner:
a) Cheque no.840711 dt 7.4.2005 drawn on ICICI Bank, Punjabi
Bagh West, New Delhi - Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore only)
b) Cheque no. 840633 dt 28.4.2005 drawn on ICICI Bank, Punjabi
Bagh West, New Delhi - Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
c) Cash - Rs.3,00,00,000/- ( Rs. Three Crores only)
The receipt of which the vendor hereby acknowledges."
6. The appellants-defendants in the suit, have filed their written
statement on 25.01.2007.
7. In the written statement filed, the appellants have raised
preliminary objections stating that respondents-plaintiffs have forged/
fabricated, the agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005, by forging the signatures
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
827
of Director of the appellant No.1, namely, Mr. Ram Dilawari, as such,
they are liable for prosecution under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Further objection is also raised questioning the very
maintainability of the suit, in view of the proceedings initiated by them in
I.A.No.61 of 2006 in CS (OS)No.1508 of 2005 under Section 340 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they have challenged the genuineness
of the agreement dated 3.5.2005. They also pleaded that the suit is
barred by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in absence of any
plea of readiness and willingness, to perform the contract on their part.
8. While opposing the reliefs as prayed for in the suit, the
appellants-defendants have pleaded that although an agreement was
entered into with the respondents-plaintiffs for sale of land ad-measuring
19074.69 sq. yards bearing no. A-22, Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, but the said contract was never
crystallized, as the nature, extent and various clauses were yet to be
finalized. It is pleaded that the same is evident from the fact that all the
necessary columns in the agreement dated 03.05.2005 were left blank
and were to be filled, after mutual agreement only. Specific averment is
made, stating that respondents-plaintiffs in connivance with Mr.T.R. Arya
i.e. 3rd defendant have fabricated facts and figures including the signatures
on the agreement. The appellants-defendants have disputed receipt of
Rs.3 crores, which amount is allegedly paid by the respondents by way
of cash. It is pleaded that the respondents-plaintiffs have fraudulently
incorporated the payment of Rs.3 crores, pertinently in cash, while only
the payment of Rs.2 crores was made by cheque. In the written
statement specific allegation is made stating that, Mr. T.R. Arya
(defendant No.3) has abused his position in appellant No.1 company, in
connivance with the plaintiffs and indulged in a fraud. In the written
statement appellants have disputed the signatures on page nos. 3 and 4
of the agreement dated 3.5.2005. While denying the various allegations
made by the plaintiffs, the appellant-defendants while stating that in
absence of any finalized agreement to sell the property and in absence
of any cause of action suit is filed for specific performance and same is
not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
9. After filing of the written statement on 25.01.2007, in which
specific averment is made to the effect that the respondents-plaintiffs
were not ready and willing to perform the contract, the respondentsplaintiffs have filed I.A.No.3370 of 2007 on 20th March, 2007 for
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
amendment of the plaint, to incorporate the plea of their willingness and
readiness, and the same is allowed by order dated 16th April, 2007.
10. In the aforesaid suit, statement of the appellant No.2/defendant
No.2 was recorded on 21.9.2007. Thereafter, one Mr. Praveen Kumar
Jolly who claimed earlier agreement in his favour for half portion of suit
property, also filed I.A.No.5422 of 2007 for his impleadment in the suit
and same was allowed on 8.12.2008. He has also filed written statement
subsequently. In view of the contest for all the reliefs sought in the suit,
issues and additional issues were framed on 02.02.2010 and 05.05.2010.
The issues and additional issues framed in the suit read as under:-
"Issues framed:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for specific
performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.05.2005 if so, to
what effect? OPP
2. Whether pages 3 and 4 of the agreement to sell dated 03.05.2005
have been executed by the defendant no.2 or not, if so to what
effect? OPD-1 to 6
3. Whether the receipt dated 07.04.2005 is forged and fabricated?
OPD-1 to 6
4. Relief.
Additional issues:
1. Whether there is a concluded contract between the parties?
OPP
2. Whether there have been insertion/interpolations in the
agreement relied upon by the Plaintiffs, consequently rendering
that agreement to sell enforceable? OPD."
11. After filing written statement in the suit, respondent Nos. 1
and 2/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1557 of 2007 under Order XII Rule 6
of CPC, praying for judgment based on certain claimed admissions. A
copy of the application filed in I.A.No.1557 of 2007 is placed on record.
The aforesaid application is filed mainly claiming that the appellants in
bail application nos.4109-4110 of 2006 seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with the crime registered on complaint filed by impleaded 4th
respondent, have categorically admitted their readiness and willingness
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
to execute a sale deed in their favour, in terms of the agreement dated
3.5.2005. The bail applications referred above were filed in connection
with the crime registered in FIR No.517 of 2006 on the file of Police
Station Sarita Vihar, which was registered on the complaint filed by Sri
Praveen Kumar Jolly (First Buyer) registered for offences under Sections
420 and 120B IPC. The aforesaid complainant, Sri Praveen Kumar Jolly
has alleged that during the subsistence of MOU entered in their favour
on 24.5.2003, for a portion of the schedule property have entered into
another agreement with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 3.5.2005. Thus,
it is pleaded that the appellants herein by entering into multiple agreements
have committed the offence of cheating. Except claimed admissions
alleged to have been made by the appellants-defendants' counsel during
the hearing of the anticipatory bail application, no other admissions are
claimed in the application. The said interlocutory application is contested
by appellants and other defendants who have seriously disputed the
genuineness of the agreement dated 3.5.2005 alleging that pages 3 and
4 of the agreement have been replaced and substituted by pages which
bear forged signatures of the defendant No.2. Further they also disputed
stating that, all throughout the case of the appellants is only admitting
receipt of Rs.Two crores but not Rs.Five crores as claimed by the
plaintiffs. Further, the relief sought in the interlocutory application is
opposed by the appellants pleading that the forgery and fabrication of
the agreement dated 3.5.2005 came to light when the said agreement
was produced by the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 1508 of 2005 filed by Sri
Praveen Kumar Jolly and immediately on receipt of copy of the agreement
dated 3.5.2005, they also filed an application in I.A. No.61 of 2006 in
CS(OS) No.1508 of 2005 under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., challenging the
genuineness of the agreement dated 3.5.2005. Thus, it is pleaded that
unless genuineness of the agreement dated 3.5.2005 is decided finally,
no decree for specific performance can be claimed.
12. The learned Single Judge, by recording that there is a serious
dispute with regard to payment of Rs.Five crores as per the agreement
entered into by the appellants, and the alleged forgery of signatures on
pages 3 and 4 of the agreement as claimed by the appellants-defendants,
has held that such issues are to be resolved only post trial, after the
parties adduce oral and documentary evidence. Further the learned
Single Judge was of the view that to claim a decree on admissions it is
essential that admissions should be clear and unequivocal. With the
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
aforesaid findings, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 24.7.2017,
dismissed the application in I.A.No.1557 of 2007 by imposing a cost of
Rs.50,000/- on the respondents-plaintiffs.
13. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the
respondents have preferred Appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966. The Division Bench, by the impugned judgment dated
2.8.2018, has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated
24.7.2017 and allowed I.A.No.1557 of 2007 by granting consequential
reliefs and permitted the respondents-plaintiffs to pay the balance amount
of Rs.50.50 crores within a period of three months and 15 days, from
the date of the judgment. The Division Bench was of the view that the
appellants have admitted, entering into an agreement with the
respondents-plaintiffs on 3.5.2005 and the receipt of Rs.Five crores is
evident from the Director's Report and balance-sheets of the company
for the year ending on 31st March, 2005; 31st March, 2006 and 31st
March, 2007. Further by holding that defence of the appellants in the
suit is not genuine and contrary to the pleadings on court's record as
well as statutory filings under Companies Act, and that there is no genuine
triable issue which could justify the trial in the suit, the Division Bench
rendered judgment on claimed admissions.
14. Learned senior counsels Sri Ranjit Kumar and Sri P.S.
Narsimha, appearing for the appellants have made the following
submissions:
15. Though there are no categorical and unconditional admissions,
as claimed by the respondents-plaintiffs, the Division Bench of the High
Court went beyond the scope of the application and allowed the same.
The suit was filed in the year 2006, in which written statement is already
filed by the appellants. In view of the serious factual disputes raised by
the appellants claiming forgery of their signatures on pages 3 and 4 of
the agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005 and the receipt of Rs.Five crores,
specific issues are framed and findings on which can be arrived only
after trial. It is stated that the application filed under Order XII Rule 6
of CPC is kept pending for more than a decade and disposed of after
trial is commenced in the suit; Categorical and unconditional admissions
alone can be considered for the purpose of grant of relief under Order
XII Rule 6 of CPC. Certain observations made in the criminal proceedings
in connection with the bail application are misconstrued as admissions
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
by the High Court for the purpose of deciding the application filed under
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC; The suit itself is for grant of specific
performance of agreement, which is discretionary and equitable relief,
court can come to conclusions only after full fledged trial by answering
several contentious issues in the suit. Even the relief claimed under
Order XII Rule 6 is also a discretionary one and no party can claim
judgment as a matter of right. To support this plea, learned counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment in the case of S.M. Asif vs. Virender
Kumar Bajaj1. To substantiate his plea that admission should be
categorical and unconditional, relied on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Himani Alloys Limited vs. Tata Steel Limited2. In support
of the plea that in a suit filed for specific performance, it is mandatory to
plead and prove readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his
part of the contract, relied on the judgment in the case of Balraj Taneja
and another vs. Sunil Madan and another3. In support of the plea
that in view of the tampering and fabrication of the agreement of sale,
same cannot be considered as a valid and concluded contract for grant
of discretionary and equitable relief, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar vs Premlata
Joshi4 and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Saradamani
Kandappan vs. S. Rajalakshmi and ors.5. In support of his plea that
inconsistent pleas are permissible in the written statement, reliance is
placed on the judgment in the case of Baldev Singh and Ors. vs.
Manohar Singh and another6 and also on the judgment in the case of
Usha Balashaheb Swami and ors. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and
ors.7.
16. On the other hand Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff has made the following
submissions.
17. The impugned judgment is based on several admissions made
by the appellants to perform their contract entered on 7.4.2005 and
3.5.2005; by referring to the provision under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC
1 (2015) 9 SCC 287
2 (2011) 15 SCC 273
3 (1999) 8 SCC 396
4 2019 SCC Online SC 12
5 (2011) 12 SCC 18
6 (2006) 6 SCC 498
7 (2007) 5 SCC 602
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
1908 as substituted by Act 104 of 1976, it is submitted that wide meaning
is to be given to the said provision; as per the amendment court is
empowered to deliver judgment where admissions of fact have been
made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing.
The appellants have made clear admissions before the court for securing
favourable orders, with regard to their admission of entering into
agreement to sell and also receipt of Rs.Five crores amount towards the
part consideration; that balance-sheets and statutory forms which are
filed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on behalf of the
first appellant company, also reveal admissions made by the appellants;
in the pleadings in the suit filed by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jolly, the appellants
have admitted the acceptance of the agreement as entered into, without
any allegation of tampering and fabrication, without disputing receipt of
Rs.Five crores, as such there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
18. In support of the plea that Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to be
interpreted widely and there is no need to narrow down the meaning
contrary to its objective, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United
Bank of India & Ors.8 and also in the case of Karam Kapahi &
Ors. vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr.9
19. In support of the plea that entries made in the balance-sheet
and Director's report of the company are to be construed as admissions,
reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Usha Rectifier
Corporation (India) Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
New Delhi10.
20. In support of the plea that an admission made by a party in a
plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in
other suits, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Basant
Singh vs. Janki Singh & Ors.11. Reliance is also placed by the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court on the judgment in the case of Vijaya
Myne vs. Satya Bhushan Kaura12 wherein the Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court has upheld the final order and judgment passed by the
8 (2000) 7 SCC 120
9 (2010) 4 SCC 753
10 (2011) 11 SCC 571
11 AIR 1967 SC 341
12 2007 (142) DLT 483
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
learned Single Judge wherein specific performance was ordered relying
on certain admissions made by the defendant.
21. Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
No.2, by referring to Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has submitted that power
conferred as per the said provision is not only on application but court
may, on its own, also deliver judgment based on admissions either in the
pleadings or otherwise. As such, it is submitted that wide meaning is to
be given to the said provision, having regard to the object and the
intendment of the Rule.
22. Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3
has submitted that, several admissions of the appellants are evident from
the balance-sheets filed before the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted
that in the absence of any application for revision of balance-sheet, entries
made in such balance-sheets are rightly considered as admissions by the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment. In support of the plea, learned
counsel has relied on the judgment in the case of Rajiv Srivastava vs.
Sanjiv Tuli and another13 and also the judgment in the case of
Thimmappa Rai vs. Ramanna Rai and others14 and the judgment in
the case of Ultramatix Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India
& Ors.15
23. Sri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel in rejoinder arguments
has submitted that the admissions referred in the Order XII Rule 6 of
CPC must be in the same suit but no application can be entertained
based on admissions alleged to have been made in another suit and also
in criminal proceedings. By referring to the definition of "pleadings" as
defined under Order VI Rule 1 of CPC has further submitted that the
term "otherwise" referred to in Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is for the
limited purpose of 'other than pleadings' in the suit, but not to enlarge the
scope of the application by covering admissions in other suits and criminal
proceedings.
24. Sri P.S. Narsimha, learned senior counsel appearing for the
second appellant has submitted that as much as the suit is for specific
performance of the agreement and the same is a discretionary and
equitable relief and in a given situation, the court may also refuse grant
13 AIR 2005 Delhi 319
14 (2007) 14 SCC 63
15 (2007) 4 Mh.L.J. 847
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
of decree of specific performance, even if the agreement is held to be
proved. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the
case of Aniglase Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Ors.16.
25. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record. The
impugned order is passed on an application filed by the respondentsplaintiffs, under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The said provision under
Order XII Rule 6 read 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."
26. The aforesaid Rule was amended by Act 104 of 1976, by
which several amendments were made to the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Earlier to 1976 amendment, judgment on admissions was confined
only on application in writing. By virtue of the amendment whether
admissions are oral or in writing, court is empowered at any stage of the
suit to give judgment on such admissions.
27. In the case on hand, at first instance a Memorandum of
Understanding was entered into by the appellants with the respondent
No.4 i.e. Mr. Praveen Kumar Jolly on 24.05.2003 with respect to half of
the suit property. It is the case of the appellants that due to non-compliance
of the terms of MOU, by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jolly, the said MOU was
terminated in August, 2004 and subsequently an arrangement/contract
is entered into with respondent nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs on 7.4.2005 and
subsequent agreement dated 3.5.2005. It is the specific case of the
appellants that contractual terms were not crystallized as such there
were several blanks in the agreement dated 3.5.2005. While it is the
case of the respondents-plaintiffs that an amount of Rs. Five crores was
16 (2005) 7 SCC 534
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
paid, i.e. Rs. Two crores by way of cheque and Rs.Three crores by way
of cash, the same is seriously disputed by the appellants-plaintiffs stating
that only an amount of Rs. Two Crores was paid and the payment of Rs.
Three crores is a fabrication of the agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005 on
pages 3 and 4 of the document. Based on the earlier MOU by the
appellants with Mr.Praveen Kumar Jolly i.e. 4th respondent herein, 4th
respondent has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in
CS(OS) No.1508 of 2005 in which conditional order was passed. It is
the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that, when such conditional interim
order was notified in the newspaper, they have come to know about the
earlier agreement entered into by the appellants with respondent No.4
and they approached the 4th respondent and handed over the original
agreement dated 3.5.2005 and the receipt to the 4th respondent. It is the
specific case of the appellants that when they have come to know about
the document dated 3.5.2005 in the suit filed by 4th respondent herein,
they have come to know tampering and fabrication of the document, as
such they have filed I.A.No.61 of 2006 in CS(OS) No.1508 of 2005
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., on 3.1.2006. The present suit in CS(OS)
No.2046 is filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, subsequently, on 1.11.2006.
In the said suit, the appellants-defendants have filed written statement
on 25.1.2007 by raising specific preliminary objection that the agreement
dated 3.5.2005 is forged and fabricated, as such, they are liable for
prosecution under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. In the written statement,
apart from other allegations, specific plea is made that suit is barred in
view of provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in
absence of any plea of readiness and willingness by the respondentsplaintiffs. While admitting the arrangement entered into with the
respondents-plaintiffs, it is the case of the appellants that the terms of
the agreement were not concretized. As such almost all the necessary
columns were left blank in the agreement dated 3.5.2005. It is not
necessary to refer in detail the further averments made in the written
statement for the disposal of this appeal before us. Subsequent to the
filing of the written statement, the respondents-plaintiffs have filed the
present application under Order XII rule 6 of CPC on 9.2.2007 for which
reply was filed by the appellants on 19.3.2007. In the reply filed on
behalf of the appellants and other defendants in I.A.No.1557 of 2006,
opposing the relief sought for on the ground that in absence of any
categorical and unconditional admissions, relief cannot be granted. The
HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v.
DALJIT SINGH & ORS. [R.