AJAY BANSAL Vs. V K ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2010 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 17.3.2009. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2009 the suit filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed; in fact the plaint had been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. The impugned judgment was of the view that the defendant had made certain clear and categorical admissions in his defence. Plaintiff was entitled to a decree on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code; suit of the plaintiff had accordingly been partly decreed; decree for mandatory injunction has been passed directing the defendant to produce the original documents referred to by him in his written statement and hand over the self attested copies thereof to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE impugned judgment had decreed the suit of the plaintiff on admissions. THEre was admittedly no application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. Certain purported admissions of the defendant as appearing in his written statement had been relied upon to afford the aforenoted relief to the plaintiff. Written statement has been perused. In the written statement the defence of the defendant was that he had purchased the property from the plaintiff vide an agreement to sell, payment receipt, deed of sale, possession letter and affidavit. He had denied the so-called loan agreement which had been alleged by the plaintiff. THE averments made in the written statement do not in any manner amount to an admission by virtue of which the suit of the plaintiff could have been decreed. Even otherwise before the first appellate court the judgment impugned was the judgment dated 17.3.2009 whereby on the reading of the averments made in the plaint the plaint had been rejected. THE trial judge had only examined the plaint. Trial judge had noted that the averments are vague and no cause of action has arisen. Perversity in the finding in the impugned judgment is noted. THE finding in the impugned judgment has raised a substantial question of law.

(3.) THE matter is accordingly remanded back to the learned District & Sessions Judge (North/East District, Karkardoom) who will assign the case to the concerned Civil Judge who shall decide the case on its merits and the plea of the appellant that the plaint does not disclose cause of action shall be considered afresh.