Interim Order 37

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
CS (COMM) No. 1263/23
Kanchan Windhwani Vs. Dtwelve Spaces Pvt Ltd
30.04.2026
Present: Ms. Aanchal Bumb Ld. Counsel for plaintiff (through
VC).
Sh. Sahil Jawed proxy counsel for Sh. Naveen
Kumar Thakur Ld. Counsel for defendant (through
VC).
1 By this order I shall dispose of application u/o.12
rule 6 CPC r/w order 13A CPC dated 26.03.2025.
2 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiff are that
there is a property bearing no. C-1/33-34,
Malkaganj, Delhi-110007 admeasuring 250 sq.
yards (hereinafter called suit property). Plaintiffs are
the co-owners of the suit property.
Defendant no.1 is a duly incorporated
company. The Directors of defendant no.
approached the plaintiff in the year 2019 for
obtaining a lease of the suit property in their favour
for the purpose of running their business. A duly
registered lease deed dated 17.07.2020 was got
registered between plaintiffs and defendant no.1
with tenancy starting from 15.11.2019 onwards.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
The rate of rent was Rs.3,65,400/- with 10%
increase per annum. The defendant no.1 paid rent
till February 2021 and thereafter it had not paid
complete rent. The rent of June 2022 was on pro-
rata basis. The details of the rent due, amount paid
and outstanding dues is mentioned in paragraph 8
of the plaint.
It is prayed that the outstanding dues of
Rs.38,91,259/- be paid by the defendant along with
interest @18% per annum.
3 In the written statement, it is stated that defendant
no.1 took the property on rent for the purposes of
36 beds. Each @ Rs.9,000/- per bed. There was
Covid pandemic and due to that reason, there was
an understanding to pay less rent and due to that
reason less rent was paid. The demise premises
became vacant w.e.f. March 2020 and the
defendant could not earn any revenue during the
lock-down period. The lock-down period was
declared “Force Majure Event”, by Govt. of India.
Due to the understanding, the entire amount has
already been paid on pro-rata basis i.e. actual
-- 2 of 5 --
3
occupancy (as mentioned in paragraphs 18-20 of
the written statement, preliminary submissions), so
nothing is due. It is stated that plaintiff is holding
Rs.6.48 lakhs as security deposit and the defendant
is entitled for the same. Rest of the contents of
plaint were denied.
4 In replication plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the
facts of the plaint and denied those of written
statement.
5 In this application, plaintiff stated that as per the
admission of the defendant, the suit may be
decreed for the amount which is admitted by the
defendant as not paid and be termed as overdue
amount. The details of the same is mentioned in
paragraph 5 of this application. So, plaintiff is
seeking decree of Rs.33,92,827/- along with
interest.
6 In reply to this application, it is stated that there is
no fact admitted by defendant regarding his liability.
There was understanding between the parties to
charge rent on pro-rata basis i.e. occupancy per
-- 3 of 5 --
4
bed. That amount already stand paid, so nothing is
due. Rest of the contents were denied.
7 I have gone through the application, its reply,
material on record, written submissions and
submissions made by Ld. Counsels for parties.
8 As far as order 12 rule 6 CPC is concerned, there is
no unambiguous admission on the part of
defendant, so, this provision is not applicable in the
present facts and material of the case on record.
9 As far as u/o.13A CPC is concerned, it is as
following:-
1. Scope of and classes of suits to which this Order applies.—
(1) This Order sets out the procedure by which Courts may decide
a claim pertaining to any Commercial Dispute without recording
oral evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this Order, the word “claim” shall include—
(a) part of a claim;
(b) any particular question on which the claim (whether in whole or
in part) depends; or
(c) a counterclaim, as the case may be.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, an application for
summary judgment under this Order shall not be made in a suit in
respect of any Commercial Dispute that is originally filed as a
summary suit under Order XXXVII.
-- 4 of 5 --
5
10 Now as per this provision order 13A rule 1 (3), there
is non-obstinate clause that this application is not
maintainable if the suit is filed u/o.37 CPC.
11 The present suit was also filed u/o.37 CPC. The
parties had treated the suit u/o.37 CPC till
08.08.2024 and thereafter on 06.12.2024 the suit
was treated as ordinary suit for recovery of money.
12 So, in these circumstances, since there is non-
obstinate clause and the suit was filed u/o.37 CPC,
this application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the
application u/o.12 rule 6 CPC r/w order 13A CPC
dated 26.03.2025 is dismissed.
13 Put up for framing of issues and consideration on
04.05.2026.
(Rakesh Pandit)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-13/
Central/Tis Hazari/Delhi/30.04.2026
-- 5 of 5 --