Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 23 Civ Suit 241/25
NAZIA Vs. BIBI RAHAT
25.02.2026
Present: Sh. Shubhneet Gupta, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Neha, Ld. proxy counsel for defendant.
At request on behalf of defendant, matter is passed over
for 11 AM.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
25.02.2026
At 11:09 AM.
Present: Sh. Shubhneet Gupta, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. S.K. Pandey and Ms. Neha, Ld. counsels for
defendant.
Arguments advanced on an application u/o 12 Rule 6
CPC.
Orders during course of the day.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
25.02.2026
At 03:00 PM.
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application u/o 12 Rule 6
CPC, filed on behalf of plaintiff.
-- 1 of 3 --
2. It is stated in the application that plaintiff has filed the suit for
recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is further stated that defendant has filed
her WS. It is further stated that defendant herself admitted the claim of
plaintiff in the statement/examination report of defendant filed by IO
in FIR No. 774/2023, u/s 420/120B IPC, PS Shastri Park, Delhi. It is
further stated that the said criminal case is pending before the Ld.
JMFC, North East, KKD Court, Delhi. It is further stated that in WS,
defendant denied the execution of agreement and payment received by
her but in the above report, the defendant admitted the execution of
agreement and taken the money in bank account of her husband due to
some technical issue and thereafter she received the said money from
her husband. It is further prayed that in view of admission on the part
of defendant, the judgment be passed in favour of plaintiff.
3. In reply filed by defendant, it is stated that false FIR No.
774/23, PS Shastri Park has been registered by the IO. It is further
stated that the statement/examination report is false and fabricated
because the IO pressurized defendant for signatures on blank paper at
instance of plaintiff and IO put the signatures of defendant on blank
papers in police station. It is further stated that the handwriting on the
examination/statement is not that of the defendant and
examination/statement was not written by defendant because
defendant is an illiterate lady. It is further stated that defendant did not
admitted the claim in other court becuase the said FIR is pending
before Ld. JMFC, KKD, Court. It is further stated that present
application is liable to be dismissed as same is merely a delaying
tactics and an afterthought on part of plaintiff. It is further stated that
under the garb of the application, plaintiff could not be permitted to
-- 2 of 3 --
change the nature of suit. It is further stated as the petition has been
filed without any cause of action, as such, there is no merit in the
application and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Submissions already heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record shows that plaintiff/applicant has relied upon
the answer made on behalf of defendant to the police officer while
being in Police Station. The answer to police officer in Police Station
do not amounts to ambiguity and unequivocal admission on the part of
defendant so as to decree the suit u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC. Hence, the
application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC is dismissed. Application disposed of
accordingly.
Matter is adjourned for arguments on an application u/o
7 Rule 14 CPC.
It be relisted on 17.03.2026.
(Ajay Kumar Malik)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
25.02.2026
-- 3 of 3 --