TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure seeking a judgment in the suit, the trial court dismissed the application stating that there is no unequivocal admission for passing a judgment in the suit. The High Court, however, reversed the order passed by the trial court and held that considering the earlier judgment deciding the ownership of the suit property in favour of the Appellant, the suit for possession ought to have been decreed by the trial court. Consequently, the High Court decreed the suit - it reveals that the High Court not only decreed the suit for possession but also directed the Plaintiff/Respondent to file an affidavit giving details of the cost of litigation since the appeal was allowed with cost. There is no dispute with regard to the law settled by this Court that Order XII Rule 6 confers wide discretion on the Court to pass judgment either at the stage of the suit on the basis of admission of the facts made in the pleadings or otherwise, but the Court shall later on decide the other questions which arise for consideration in the Suit - It is equally well settled that the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is not a mandatory provision rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 5. The trial court held that though the judgment dated 8.9.2003 of the District Court and judgment dated 12.9.2011 of the High Court had rejected the plea of the Appellant that the suit property was a HUF property, these findings were made in a suit for partition whereas the present suit was filed for recovery of possession and damages. The trial court further held that for passing a decree Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, the Defendant had to make an unequivocal and unqualified admission. The Appellant herein has not made such an admission regarding his liability to pay the damages claimed by the Respondent. The trial court dismissed the application vide judgment dated 7.6.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the Respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court while allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit with costs held that the pleas taken by the Appellant-Defendant regarding the contribution made by his grandfather, father and himself in the purchase of the suit property had been rejected by the High Court vide judgment dated 12.9.2011 and the same will operate as res judicata. The High Court further held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear that it confers wide discretion on the court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the pleading or otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question arose between the parties. Since the Rule permits the passing of judgment at any stage without waiting for determination of other question, it follows that there can be more than one decree that may be passed at different stages of the same suit. The principle behind Order XII Rule 6 is to give the Plaintiff a right to speedy judgment so that either party may get rid of the rival claims which are not in controversy. 11. The provision of Order XII Rule 6 has been discussed by this Court in the case of Karam Kapahi and Ors. v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 753, wherein this Court observed: 39. In the 54th Law Commission Report, an amendment was suggested to enable the court to give a judgment not only on the application of a party but on its own motion. It is thus clear that the amendment was brought about to further the ends of justice and give these provisions a wider sweep by empowering the Judges to use it ex debito justitiae , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passing a judgment in the suit. The High Court, however, reversed the order passed by the trial court and held that considering the earlier judgment deciding the ownership of the suit property in favour of the Appellant, the suit for possession ought to have been decreed by the trial court. Consequently, the High Court decreed the suit. Paras 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court are quoted hereinbelow: 6. The only new aspect urged in the present written statement is that the Respondent/Defendant claimed that he received ownership share in the suit property by virtue of a written compromise entered into before the police station Anand Vihar on 22.10.1997, however, it is noted that the earlier suit, which was a suit for partition filed by the Respondent/Defendant, the issue as regards the claim of the Respondent/Defendant to the ownership rights in the suit property was very much in issue, and hence the Respondent/Defendant had to urge in the earlier proceedings all the basis of his claims of ownership rights in the suit property and if that was not done the Respondent/Defendant is now barred by the principle of constructive res judicata from raising any cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judication so far as other issues are concerned. 17. Indisputably, the Plaintiff/Respondent filed the suit for following relief: i) A decree for possession of the suit property; ii) A decree for recovery of Rs. 5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs. 15,000/- per month against the Defendant. 18. So far as the first relief for a decree for possession is concerned, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court having regard to the question of ownership already decided in the earlier suit filed by the Defendant/Appellant. The said issue need not have to be decided afresh and hence on the basis of the finding of ownership decided in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent, the suit has to be decreed so far as the recovery of possession is concerned. 19. So far as the second question with regard to the entitlement of the Plaintiff/Respondent to claim a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs. 15,000/- per month is concerned, admittedly this question has not been decided either in the earlier suit or in this suit. In that view of the matter, decreeing the entire suit on the basis of ownership of the Plaintiff/Respondent already decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
