Justice Manoj Jain, Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court: No Prohibition In Law That Order XII Rule 6 CPC Application Can't Be Filed After Issues Are Framed
|Petitioner filed a recovery suit and sought judgment on admission, but the Trial Court closed her right to lead evidence.
The Delhi High Court held that there is no prohibition in law that no Application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) can be filed after issues are framed.
The Court directed a Trial Court to permit the plaintiff to lead evidence in a recovery suit, in the event her application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is not allowed.
The case arose from a recovery suit filed by the petitioner for an amount of ₹10 lakhs. After the framing of issues on 17 December 2024, the Trial Court directed the plaintiff to file her evidence by way of affidavits within 15 days and scheduled the next hearing for 21 April 2025.
However, instead of filing evidence, the plaintiff e-filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, citing admissions in the written statement filed by the defendant. The application was taken on record, and a copy was supplied to the defendant. Despite this, the Trial Court abruptly closed the plaintiff’s right to lead evidence, citing non-compliance with the earlier direction to submit affidavits.
The High Court noted that the Trial Court had prematurely and summarily closed the plaintiff's right to lead evidence despite her timely filing of an application for judgment based on admissions.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Jain said, “It is quite apparent that since the plaintiff had moved an application seeking admission-decree and since she wanted decision on her application and then to lead evidence, if required, the learned Trial Court should not have, in a summary and hasty manner, closed her right to lead evidence. Moreover, there is no prohibition in law that no such application can be filed after issues are framed.”
Advocate Ved Prakash Sharma appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Vinod Dahiya appeared for the Respondent.
The Court held that the plaintiff’s right to lead evidence should not have been curtailed, especially when the application seeking judgment on admission could render evidence unnecessary. It added, “Importantly, when the learned Trial Court had itself given indulgence by issuing notice to the aforesaid application whereby the plaintiff was seeking admission-decree, it should have not insisted for leading evidence. Aspect of adducing evidence might even become redundant, if there is, eventually, a decree based on any such alleged admission.”
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition, directing, “Needless to say, in case plaintiff is required to lead evidence, she would render her best assistance and co-operation to the learned Trial Court and would submit list of witnesses and affidavits of her witnesses, within the time-frame to be given in this regard by the learned Trial Court.”
The Court also noted that all pending applications stood disposed of with the main petition.
Cause Title: Shilpa Gupta v. Ashok Kansal, [2025:DHC:4325]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ved Prakash Sharma and Mayank Garg