Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 330/25 Akil Ahmad Vs. Neelam Gupta pg. no. 1/7
Civ Suit 330/25
AKIL AHMAD Vs. NEELAM GUPTA
08.01.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
filed by the plaintiff shall be adjudicated.
2.
Pithily put, the present case is one for recovery of
Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest as
against the defendant. It is the plaintiff's case that an
agreement to sell was duly executed between the defendant
and plaintiff on 21.07.2024 for purchase of the suit property
consisting of ground floor, first and second floor with roof
rights of property bearing No. 169A, out of khasra No.
256/4, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi-110092 for a
consideration of Rs.28,00,000/-. It has been averred that as
per the agreement to sell, an earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/-
was paid in cash by the plaintiff to the defendant and it was
agreed that the remaining amount of Rs.27,00,000/- would
be paid on 20.01.2025 at the time of the execution of the
sale documents and of handing over the possession of the
suit property. It is alleged that the defendant failed to
provide the previous chain of documents pertaining to the
suit property and also failed to clear the dues of house tax,
electricity bill, water charges, sewerage charges, etc., and
copies of Aadhar Card, PAN Card and cross cheque as
-- 1 of 7 --
Civ Suit 330/25 Akil Ahmad Vs. Neelam Gupta pg. no. 2/7
promised by her to the plaintiff. The plaintiff avers that he
sent a legal notice dated 11.03.2025 to the defendant
requesting her to provide the necessary documents and
receipts of all the dues to the plaintiff and extend the date
for execution of the sale documents. It is claimed that the
defendant replied to the said legal notice on 25.03.2025
wherein she admitted the execution of the said agreement to
sell and the receipt of earnest money but refused to hand
over the required documents to the plaintiff. Consequently,
the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of
Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest.
3. Upon summons having been issued, defendant entered an
appearance and WS was filed.
4. Defendant in her WS admitted the execution of the
agreement to sell dated 21.07.2024 as well as the payment
of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- by the plaintiff. However,
it was averred that the plaintiff was the one who failed to
comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement as
he could not arrange the remaining consideration amount of
Rs.27,00,000/- till 20.01.2025 resulting in a loss of
Rs.5,00,000/- approximately to the defendant. It has
therefore, been averred that the earnest money of
Rs.1,00,000/- has rightfully been forfeited by the defendant
and that there is no merit in the suit filed by the plaintiff.
-- 2 of 7 --
Civ Suit 330/25 Akil Ahmad Vs. Neelam Gupta pg. no. 3/7
5. In view of the WS qua defendant having been filed as
aforesaid, the application in question under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff. As per the said
application, it is contended that the defendant has made
clear unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional
admissions in respect of the execution of the agreement to
sell dated 21.07.2024 as well as the receipt of the earnest
money in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It has further been
argued that the plaintiff sent the first legal notice dated
17.01.2025 to the defendant asking him to hand over the
receipts of all the cleared dues and extend the date for
execution of sale documents and in default pay
Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. double the earnest money. It has been
argued that the defendant has admitted receipt of this first
legal notice sent by the plaintiff in her reply dated
25.03.2025 to the second legal notice. It has, therefore, been
argued that the suit is liable to be decreed under Order 12
Rule 6 CPC based upon the admissions made by the
defendant.
6. Reply to the application in question was filed by the
defendant. She opposed the contentions taken by the
plaintiff in the application and reiterated her version as
stated in the WS.
7. Submissions heard. Record perused.
-- 3 of 7 --
Civ Suit 330/25 Akil Ahmad Vs. Neelam Gupta pg. no. 4/7
8. The import of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been reiterated by
superior courts from time to time. As per the same, the Court
can, either on its own or on application pass judgment in
view of admissions of facts made by the parties in their
pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing at any stage of
the suit. In fact, such admissions may not be categorical and
even constructive admissions which can be inferred from
the facts and circumstances of the case can form the basis of
passing of orders under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The
underlying theme of such a provision is to curtail litigation
on agreed aspects of the suit and narrow it down to points
of contention only upon which there are differing stands of
the parties. The Court must not allow unnecessary litigation
to continue on factual aspects which are admitted by the
parties and orders for relief can be passed in that regard
without further ado. (
Anar Devi Vs. Nathu Ram (1984) 4
SCC 250)
9. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Rajeev Tandon v. Rashmi Tandon, 2019 SCC OnLine Del
7336 held that vague, unsubstantiated and evasive pleas in
the WS are sufficient to hold that there are admissions in the
pleadings to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6.
10. Thus, while disposing of an application under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, the court is fully justified in considering the
averments in the written statement to see whether essential
facts have been pleaded or whether the defence is a
-- 4 of 7 --
Civ Suit 330/25 Akil Ahmad Vs. Neelam Gupta pg. no. 5/7
complete moonshine, requiring the Court to not send the
case for trial.
11. In the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the
execution of the agreement to sell dated 21.07.2024 and the
payment of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- by the plaintiff
to the defendant. The dispute pertains to whether the
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract by paying the remaining consideration amount of
Rs.27,00,000/- by 20.01.2025. The plaintiff contends that
the first legal notice was sent to the defendant on 17.01.2025
and when no reply was received to the said legal notice, a
second legal notice was sent on 11.03.2025. It is argued that
the first legal notice sent in January, 2025 establishes that
the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract and it was the defendant who failed to hand over
the necessary documents and the receipts showing that all
the dues pertaining to the suit property were cleared.
12.However, upon reading of the plaint, it is seen that it has no
reference to first legal notice allegedly sent by the plaintiff
at all. The said legal notice has been filed belatedly
alongwith the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Thus,
the defendant had no opportunity to admit or deny the
receiving of this legal notice. The argument of the plaintiff
that the defendant has admitted receipt of the first legal
notice in her reply dated 25.03.2025 to the second legal
notice is found to be without merit. First and foremost, the
-- 5 of 7 --
Civ Suit 330/25 Akil Ahmad Vs. Neelam Gupta pg. no. 6/7
provision of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC does not apply to replies
sent to legal notices. Consequently, even if the defendant
did not specifically deny receipt of the first notice, the same
cannot be construed as an admission on her part.
13.Furthermore, paragraph 6 of the parawise reply sent by the
defendant to the second legal notice categorically states that
‘
contents of para no. 6 of your legal notice are false and
fabricated.’ Thus, the defendant has, in fact, denied that the
first legal notice was ever sent or received.
14.It is also pertinent to note that apart from the first legal
notice allegedly sent by the plaintiff on 17.01.2025 (which
has conspicuously not been mentioned in the plaint at all),
the plaintiff has not placed anything on record to show that
he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
He has not filed his bank account statement or any other
relevant document to show that he had the financial capacity
to pay Rs.27,00,000/- to the defendant on or before
20.01.2025.
15.Furthermore, the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the
chain of documents was not provided to him as assured by
the defendant. However, this assertion finds no mention in
either of the two legal notices admittedly sent by the
plaintiff to the defendant. The omission of such a material
fact in the legal notices casts a doubt on the veracity of the
pleadings in the plaint.
-- 6 of 7 --
Civ Suit 330/25 Akil Ahmad Vs. Neelam Gupta pg. no. 7/7
16.On the other hand, the defendant has consistently stated that
the execution of the sale documents could not take place due
to the failure of the plaintiff to pay the remaining
consideration amount. In such circumstances, it cannot be
said that the defendant has made any admissions on which
the suit can be decreed in favour of the plaintiff under Order
12 Rule 6 CPC.
17.For the aforementioned reasons, the application under Order
12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
08.01.2026
-- 7 of 7 --