Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs Parveen Kumar Garg and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—Learned Counsel for the Respondents, with a strong sense of fairness, has conceded that the impugned judgment and decree which decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on so called unambiguous admissions without any evidence in this case is based on clearly an illegal, erroneous view because, though, the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff No. 1 is correct in his stand before the Trial Court and his suit for possession ought to have been decreed, however, this is an issue which can only be decided after trial inasmuch as the Appellant/Defendant has taken up the case that the property has been purchased out of a business in which the Appellant/Defendant had a share. I am not commenting one way or the other upon the respective stands taken by the parties in the Trial Court, however, all these are disputed questions of facts and these disputed questions of facts could not have been decided by the impugned judgment and decree on the basis of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC which only applies when admitted facts justify the grant of a decree. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, impugned judgment and decree is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 14.4.2011, the date already fixed. The Trial Court will now proceed with the suit in accordance with law after framing of issues if necessary and thereafter allowing parties to lead evidence. Nothing contained in today''s order and in the impugned judgment will in any manner prejudice either of the parties at the stage of the trial and the final arguments in the case.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.