The Delhi High Court has set aside a judgment and decree passed by a District Judge under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), observing that the mere reproduction of a Plaintiff’s pleadings in a Written Statement—likely due to “inartful drafting”—does not constitute a clear and unequivocal admission of liability.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Ksheterpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that a decree on admission can only be passed where the admission is “clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, leaving no room for doubt or controversy.” The Court directed the trial court to proceed with a full trial to adjudicate the disputed claims.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated from a registered lease deed dated May 16, 2014, executed between Shri Virender Kaushik (Appellant/Defendant) and Satish Jindal (Respondent/Plaintiff) regarding a shop in Pitampura, New Delhi. The lease was for a fixed period of five years, ending on May 15, 2019, with a graduated rent schedule reaching Rs. 66,700/- per month in the final year.
Following the termination of the lease, the Plaintiff filed a recovery suit claiming that the Defendant had failed to pay outstanding dues and was liable for damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per day for unauthorized occupation beyond the lease term. While possession was eventually handed back, the parties disagreed on the date of handover—the Defendant claimed December 10, 2020, while the Plaintiff asserted it was February 10, 2021.
The Trial Court’s Decision
The learned District Judge (LDJ) at Rohini Courts had decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 24,30,000/- in favor of the Plaintiff. This decision was based on “alleged admissions” found in paragraph 6 of the Defendant’s Written Statement. The LDJ concluded that the Defendant had admitted to the outstanding liability for rent and damages for the period from May 16, 2019, to February 10, 2021.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the High Court, the Appellant (Defendant) argued that certain incorrect averments had inadvertently found their way into the Written Statement due to drafting errors. His counsel submitted that rent had been regularly remitted at Rs. 50,000/- per month (after TDS) until December 22, 2020, except for a three-month period during the COVID-19 lockdown.
Conversely, the Respondent (Plaintiff) contended that the Written Statement contained a “clear and categorical admission” regarding the balance amount. It was argued that the Defendant could not be permitted to resile from or retract such a specific admission.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court meticulously compared paragraph 6 of the Plaint with paragraph 6 of the Written Statement. It noted that the Defendant, while prefacing the reply with a formal denial, had substantially reproduced the Plaintiff’s claims verbatim.
The Court observed:
“Upon careful and meaningful reading… it becomes manifestly clear that the Defendant, while prefacing the paragraph with a formal denial, has substantially reproduced the averments contained in the Plaint. However, such reproduction appears to be a consequence of defective or inartful drafting rather than a clear, conscious and unequivocable admission of liability.”
The Bench emphasized that a Written Statement must be read holistically. It pointed out that the concluding portion of the same paragraph in the Written Statement asserted that the Defendant “always paid his rent on time regularly.”
The Court further stated:
“The mere reproduction of the Plaintiff’s pleadings, accompanied by a general denial, cannot ipso facto be construed as an admission of liability so as to justify the passing of a decree on admission.”
The Bench also noted that the Ledger Accounts and statements produced by the parties raised “triable issues,” particularly regarding the regular payments made and the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown, which necessitated adjudication through the appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated July 5, 2024, and September 19, 2024. The Court directed the District Judge to proceed with the trial and record evidence expeditiously.
The parties have been directed to appear before the trial court on April 8, 2026. The High Court clarified that the Plaintiff remains at liberty to file a fresh application under Order XII Rule 6 if advised, and the trial court shall decide the suit independently on its own merits.
Case Details
- Case Title: Shri Virender Kaushik v. Satish Jindal
- Case No: RFA (COMM) 518/2024 & CM APPL. 70331/2024
- Bench: Justice Anil Ksheterpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
- Date: March 24, 2026
