Meenakshi Arya & Anr. vs Bhupendra Singh Chauhan & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 01 SEPTEMBER, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No. DLHC010464062023
I.A. 21264/2026
In
+ CS(OS) 754/2023
MEENAKSHI ARYA & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Mallika Parmar, Advocate.
Plaintiffs in person
versus
BHUPENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN & ANR. .....Defendants
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
I.A. 21264/2026
1. The present application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has been filed
on behalf of the Plaintiffs praying for a judgment and decree for a sum of
Rs.1,21,24,400/- along with interest and damages on the basis of admissions
made by the Defendants in their written statement.
2. The Plaintiff has filed the instant Suit for recovery of Rs.1,21,24,400/-
along with interest for a sum of Rs.58,88,769/- being the interest amount @
18% per annum on the principal amount and a sum of Rs.19,90,000/- as
damages for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Plaintiffs. The
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 1 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
Plaintiffs have also prayed for pendente lite interest @18% per annum on
the principal amount from the date of the institution of Suit till actual
realisation.
3. Material on record indicates that Plaintiff No.2 was a close friend of
Plaintiff No.1, who introduced Plaintiff No.1 to the Defendants. It is the case
of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants, thereafter, persuaded the Plaintiff No.1
to assist the Defendants financially. Believing on the narratives of the
Defendants, several amounts were advanced by the Plaintiff No.1 to the
Defendants as financial assistance. The details as to how these amounts were
paid to the Defendants have also been given in the Plaint.
4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they have been duped by the
Defendants in paying more and more money to them. It is stated that the
Defendants had acknowledged the debt in the form of promissory note and
receipts, and had promised the Plaintiffs that the amounts would be paid on
demand. It is stated that the Defendants used to persuade the Plaintiffs
showing rosy pictures of their illusory and deceptive project and allured the
Plaintiffs to part with further money to participate in the said project to get
benefits in the form of a big piece of land valuing in crores of rupees. It is
stated that the Plaintiffs were promised by the Defendants that they would
be compensated reasonably and that to gain the confidence of the Plaintiffs,
a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 02.11.2020 was also entered
into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. On 02.11.2020, the
Defendants were paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- by the Plaintiff No.1 through
the Plaintiff No.2.
5. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that since no money was forthcoming
after two years from the date of first payment made to the Defendants, the
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 2 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
depiction by the Defendants of rosy pictures of their illusory and deceptive
project started fading away. It is stated that on enquiries, the Plaintiffs found
that Defendant No.1 was involved in criminal cases, thereafter, the present
Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs.
6. Written statement has been filed by the Defendants stating that the
Plaintiffs were interested in purchasing a 1000 sq. yards piece of land. It is
the case of the Defendants that the 1000 sq. yards piece of land was to be
given to the Defendants only after the said land was allotted to the
Defendants. It is the case of the Defendants that since the said land is yet to
be allotted to the Defendants, they have not been able to give the said land to
the Plaintiffs. It is stated that the security cheques given by the Defendants
have been illegally presented by the Plaintiffs. It is stated that the Plaintiffs
were fully aware of the entire transactions. Paragraphs No.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of
the Written Statement is reproduced as under:
“2. That the Plaintiff being fully aware about the
aforesaid facts came with proposal to invest an amount
of Rs. 1 Cr. in lieu of land of 1000 Sq. Yrds. in the
aforesaid project. The Defendant no.1 was initially
reluctant to accept the aforesaid proposal as the
investment made by the Defendant no.l for purchasing
the right of Smt. Rama Devi was old and the claim was
almost mature in all respect. However, the Plaintiffs in
order to earn huge benefit persuaded the Defendant
no.1 and as such got ready to invest the amount of Rs.1
Cr. for acquiring the share of the Defendant no.1 to the
extent of 1000 Sq. Yrds in the land proposed to be
allotted.
3. That the Plaintiffs after preparing the Memorandum
of Understanding got the same hastily signed from the
Defendant no. 1. As per the terms and condition of the
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 3 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
MOU the Plaintiffs were under contractual obligation
to pay an amount of Rs. 1 Cr. to the Defendant no.1
within a period of 2 months from the date of execution
of the said agreement. However, the Plaintiffs instead
of incorporating the amount as per the initial
understanding within a period of 2 months made it in 2
years. It is pertinent to mention herein that Clause 7 of
the MOU clearly mentioned that the Defendants will be
liable to pay back the Plaintiff only if the land is not
allotted due to change in the policy of the government
or for any other reason. The aforementioned clause is
reiterated as follows “that the first party will return the
invested amount alongwith interest @36% p.a.
(compounded annually) to the second party, in case, if
no land is allotted to the one of the first party i.e.
Bhupendra Singh Chauhan in lieu of the claim of Smt.
Ram Devi due to change in the policy of the
government or for any other reason. The second party
would not be responsible at all for anything in any
manner for not allotment of land due to any reason”.
4. That the Defendant no.1 due to the untimely payment
made by the Plaintiffs, could not pursue the matter in
the department as well as in the Court. In any case the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant no.1 were only intending
to earn profit from the aforesaid investment. Since the
claim qua the said land has been pending before the
Hon’ble court as such suit filed by the Plaintiffs is
contrary to the agreed terms but also premature and
no relief as prayed for by the Plaintiffs can be granted
at this stage. Hence the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
recover money from the Defendants particularly when
the amount was invested by the Plaintiffs to earn
benefit as stipulated in the memorandum of
understanding. The Defendants have never borrowed
any money from the Plaintiffs and all the money was
invested by the Plaintiffs only in order get the land in
lieu thereof as mentioned in the MOU.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 4 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
5. That the Plaintiff no.1 & 2 have been involved in the
real estate business and the Plaintiff no.1 used to
invest money in the property and the Plaintiff no.2
assist her in property transaction. Both the Plaintiffs
after going through all the relevant documents
executed in favor of the Defendant no.1 qua the
proposed land to be allotted in favor of Smt. Rama
Devi, had entered into the aforesaid MOU dated
02.11.2020.
6. That the Defendants initially borrowed some money
from the Plaintiffs but subsequently when the Plaintiffs
have come to know about the aforesaid lucrative
project of land and further rights of the Defendant no.1
in the property proposed to be allotted, the Plaintiffs
persuaded the Defendant no.1 to adjust the aforesaid
loan amount qua creating the rights of the Plaintiffs
with regard to 1000 Sq. yards of the land from the
share of the Defendant no.1. However, the Plaintiffs
without any basis and contrary to the terms of
aforesaid MOU filed the present pre-mature suit before
this Hon’ble court. It is the modus operandi of the
Plaintiffs to extract huge amount while misinterpreting
the agreed terms of the aforesaid MOU so as to cause
unlawful gains for themselves.”
7. A perusal of the above paragraphs shows that the case of the
Defendants is that the transaction involved with the Plaintiffs was one for
purchase of land and not a loan transaction, as portrayed by the Plainitffs in
the Plaint.
8. The present Application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has been
filed by the Plaintiffs on the basis of admission by the Defendants. It is the
case of the Plaintiffs in the Application that the Defendants have admitted
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 5 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
that they have received money from the Plaintiffs. The so-called admissions
by the Defendants, which has been relied upon by the Plaintiffs, has been
replied to on merits by the Plaintiffs in the Application which reads as
under:
“A. Preliminary Objection No. 2 (page 2): “the claim
of Smt. Rama Devi is still pending for adjudication
before this Hon’ble court.” This is an admission that
the claim had not matured and the contemplated land
had not been allotted.
B. Additional Plea No. 3 (pages 4–5) and Reply on
Merits, paragraph 5 (pages 9–10): “It is pertinent to
mention herein that Clause 7 of the MOU clearly
mentioned that the Defendants will be liable to pay
back the Plaintiff only if the land 1s not allotted due to
change in the policy of the government or for any other
reason. The aforementioned clause is reiterated as
follows “that the first party will return the invested
amount alongwith interest @36% p.a. (compounded
annually) to the second party, in case, if no land is
allotted to the one of the first party i.e. Bhupendra
Singh Chauhan in lieu of the claim of Smt. Ram Devi
due to change in the policy of the government or for
any other reason. The second party would not be
responsible at all for anything in any manner for not
allotment of land due to any reason”..” This admits the
contractual obligation to repay upon non-allotment.
C. Additional Plea No. 5 (page 6): “the Defendants
initially borrowed some money from the Plaintiffs but
subsequently ... the Plaintiffs persuaded the Defendant
no.1 to adjust the aforesaid loan amount qua creating
the rights of the Plaintiffs with regard to 1000 Sq.
yards of the land from the share of the Defendant
no.1.” The antecedent borrowings and their
adjustment into the MOU are expressly admitted.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 6 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
D. Reply on Merits, paragraph 3 (pages 7–8): “It is
further submitted that vide MOU dated 02.11.2020 the
Plaintiff invested an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000
(Rupees One Crore Only) in lieu of 1000 sq yds of land
from the land proposed to be fell in the share of
Defendant No.1. I.” The Defendants, thus, admit that
₹1,00,00,000/- was given to them under the MOU.
E. Reply on Merits, paragraph 4 (page 8): “It is
pertinent to mention herein that the money given by the
Plaintiff No.1 to the Defendants prior to the signing of
the MOU got adjusted in the amounts mentioned in the
MOU as no separate amount other than ₹30,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) as alleged were given at
the time of signing of the MOU.” This admits the pre-
MOU payments, their adjustment in the MOU and the
separate ₹30,00,000/- payment at execution.
F. Reply on Merits, paragraph 6 (page 10): “the
Plaintiff invested the alleged amount of ₹1,21,24,400/-
while enhancing her share to the extent of 1200 sqyds
in the proposed project as mentioned in the MOU
dated 02.11.2020 on the same terms and condition of
the said MOU.” This is the Defendants' express
positive plea concerning the entire principal sum
claimed in the suit and that it is governed by the same
MOU terms. The Plaintiffs rely upon the admission of
the amount and governing terms without admitting the
Defendants' characterisation or the alleged
enhancement.
G. Reply on Merits, paragraph 7 (page 11): “the
cheques given by the Defendants to the Plaintiff No.1
were towards security cheques as mentioned in the
MOU in question.” The issuance of cheques by the
Defendants and their connection with the admitted
MOU transactions are also admitted.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 7 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
H. Reply on Merits, paragraph 8 (pages 11–12): “the
cheques given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff No.1
were security cheques which the Defendant undertook
to take back after returning the money ... the money
advanced by the Plaintiff No.1 in lieu of the security
cheques got adjusted in the MOU dated 02.11.2020.”
This admits the obligation to return the money and that
the money advanced was adjusted into the MOU.”
9. Apart from the above admissions of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
have also placed reliance upon the MoU, General Agreement, Promissory
Notes, Receipts and the Bank Statements, to show that once the Defendants
have accepted that they have received the amount of Rs.1,21,24,400/-, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the same.
10. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the Parties and perused the
material on record.
11. It is well settled that the purport of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to cut
down on frivolous proceedings. The object of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is
that if the claims are admitted in the pleadings, then a Party should be able
to get a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief which stands
admitted by the other side, however, the admission has to be unambiguous
and clear. The purport and scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has been
succinctly explained by the Apex Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd.
v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120 , wherein the Apex Court has
held as under:
“ 12 . As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not
say anything more than what the legislature itself has
said when the said provision came to be amended. In
the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 8 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
said Rule, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted,
the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the
plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The
object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a
speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to
which according to the admission of the defendant, the
plaintiff is entitled”. We should not unduly narrow
down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to
enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the
other party has made a plain admission entitling the
former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever
there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which
it is impossible for the party making such admission to
succeed.
13 . The next contention canvassed is that the
resolutions or minutes of the meeting of the Board of
Directors, resolution passed thereon and the letter
sending the said resolution to the respondent Bank
cannot amount to a pleading or come within the scope
of the Rule as such statements are not made in the
course of the pleadings or otherwise. When a statement
is made to a party and such statement is brought
before the court showing admission of liability by an
application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 and the other
side has sufficient opportunity to explain the said
admission and if such explanation is not accepted by
the court, we do not think the trial court is helpless in
refusing to pass a decree. We have adverted to the
basis of the claim and the manner in which the trial
court has dealt with the same. When the trial Judge
states that the statement made in the proceedings of the
Board of Directors' meeting and the letter sent as well
as the pleadings when read together, leads to
unambiguous and clear admission with only the extent
to which the admission is made in dispute, and the
court had a duty to decide the same and grant a
decree, we think this approach is unexceptionable.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 9 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
14 . Before the trial Judge, there was no pleading much
less an explanation as to the circumstances in which
the said admission was made, so as to take it out of the
category of admissions which created a liability. On
the other hand, what is stated in the course of the
pleadings, in answer to the application filed under
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the stand is clearly to the
contrary. Statements had been made in the course of
the minutes of the Board of Directors' meeting held on
30-5-1990 which we have already adverted to in detail.
In the pleadings raised before the Court, there is a
clear statement made by the respondent as to the
undisputed part of the claim made by them. In regard
to this aspect of communicating the resolution dated
30-5-1990 in the letter dated 4-6-1990 what is stated in
the affidavit-in-opposition in application under Order
12 Rule 6 CPC is save what are matters on record and
save what would appear from the letter (sic resolution)
dated 30-5-1990 all allegations to the contrary are
disputed and denied. This averment would clearly
mean that the petitioner does not deny a word of what
was recorded therein and what is denied is the
allegation to the contrary. The denial is evasive and
the learned Judge is perfectly justified in holding that
there is an unequivocal admission of the contents of the
documents and what is denied is extent of the
admission but the increase in the liability is admitted.”
12. A perusal of the abovementioned paragraphs shows that for passing
an Order under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, a Court should consider that the
admission is only those which are made in the Pleadings. The
abovementioned paragraphs have been explained by the Apex Court in
Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753 ,
wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 10 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
“ 42 . In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank
of India [(2000) 7 SCC 120] this Court, while
construing this provision, held that the Court should
not unduly narrow down its application as the object is
to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.
43 . In Uttam Singh Duggal case [(2000) 7 SCC 120] it
was contended on behalf of the appellant, Uttam Singh
Duggal, that:
(a) Admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 should only be
those which are made in the pleadings.
(b) The admissions would in any case have to be read
along with the first proviso to Order 8 Rule 5(1) of the
Code and the court may call upon the party relying on
such admission to prove its case independently.
(c) The expression “either in pleadings or otherwise”
should be interpreted ejusdem generis. (See para 11, p.
126-27 of the Report.)
Almost similar contentions have been raised on behalf
of the Club. In Uttam Singh [(2000) 7 SCC 120] those
contentions were rejected and this Court opined no
effort should be made to narrow down the ambit of
Order 12 Rule 6
44 . In Uttam Singh [(2000) 7 SCC 120] this Court
made a distinction between a suit just between the
parties and a suit relating to the Specific Relief Act,
1963 where a declaration of status is given which not
only binds the parties but also binds generations. The
Court held that such a declaration may be given
merely on admission (SCC para 16 at p. 128 of the
Report). But in a situation like the present one where
the controversy is between the parties on an admission
of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on
admission by the court.”
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 11 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
13. What amounts to admission in the Pleadings under Order XII Rule 6
of CPC has been succinctly explained by the Apex Court in Vikrant Kapila
v. Pankaja Panda, (2024) 18 SCC 695 , wherein the Apex Court has held as
under:
“ 30 . The judicial discretion conferred on the court is
structured on the definition of “admission” under
Section 17 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Rule 5 of
Order 8, Rule 6 of Order 12 and Rules 1 and 2 of
Order 15CPC.
31 . An “admission” means, “a statement, oral or
documentary or contained in electronic form, which
suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons,
and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned”.
[P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, 5th
Edn., Vol. 1 (A-C), p. 140.]
32 . Admission in pleadings means a statement made by
a party to the legal proceedings, whether oral,
documentary, or contained in an electronic form, and
the said statement suggests an inference with respect to
a fact in issue between the parties or a relevant fact. It
is axiomatic that to constitute an admission, the said
statement must be clear, unequivocal and ought not to
entertain a different view. Coming to admission in
pleadings, these are averments made by a party in the
pleading viz. plaint, written statement, etc. in a pending
proceeding of admitting the factual matrix presented
by the other side. To constitute a valid admission in
pleading, the said admission should be unequivocal,
unconditional, and unambiguous, and the admission
must be made with an intention to be bound by it.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 12 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
Admission must be valid without being proved by
adducing evidence and enabling the opposite party to
succeed without trial. A court, while pronouncing a
judgment on admission, keeps in its perspective the
requirements in Order 8 Rule 5, Order 12 Rule 6 and
Order 15 Rules 1 and 2CPC read with Sections 17, 58
and 68 of the Evidence Act.
33. The logic behind such jurisprudential
examination of an admission is that a judgment
pronounced on admission, not only denies the right of
trial on an issue but denies the remedy of appeal.
Hence, discretion has to be exercised judiciously and
objectively while making a judgment on admission in
a pleading. The existence of the power to pronounce a
judgment on admission under Rule 6 of Order 12 [
Order 12 Rule 6“6. Judgment on admissions.—(1)
Where admissions of fact have been made either in the
pleading or otherwise; whether orally or in writing, the
Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the
application of any party or of its own motion and
without waiting for the determination of any other
question between the parties, make such order or give
such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to
such admissions.(2) Whenever a judgment is
pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn
up in accordance with the judgment and the decree
shall bear the date on which the judgment was
pronounced.”] and Rules 1 and 2 of Order 15 [ Order
15“1. Parties not at issue.—(1) Where at the first
hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at
issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may
at once pronounce judgment.2. One of several
defendants not at issue.— [Renumbered as sub-rule (1)
by Act 104 of 1976, S. 65.] [(1)] Where there are more
defendants than one, and any one of the defendants is
not at issue with the plaintiff on any question of law or
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 13 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment for
or against such defendant and the suit shall proceed
only against the other defendants. [Ins. by Act 104 of
1976, S. 65.] [(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced
under this rule, decree shall be drawn up in
accordance with such judgment and the decree shall
bear the date on which the judgment was
pronounced.]”] , is not an issue in the appeal but
rather the issue is whether pronouncing judgment on
alleged admission is valid and legal.
34 . When the admissions are categorical and
unequivocal, the remedies available against such a
decree are limited. In a given case, as in the present
appeal, if there is an argument on whether there is an
admission of a fact or a document, before examining
the merits of the matter, this Court ought to verify
whether admission exists or not and also whether the
circumstances relied upon by the learned Single Judge
can be constituted as admission for rendering a
judgment.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. In the opinion of this Court, the present application under Order XII
Rule 6 of CPC filed by the Plaintiffs is completely misconceived. The case
as portrayed by the Plaintiffs is one of a pure loan transaction with the
Defendants, however, at one paragraph in the Application, the Plaintiffs do
obliquely mention that they were lured of certain profits from land by the
Defendants. The case of the Defendants is one of an Agreement entered into
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants for the purpose of purchase of a
piece of land, which is yet to be allotted to the Defendants. The case of the
Defendants in the written statement is that the Plaintiffs are only investors
and that they have misused the cheques which were given by the Defendants
to the Plaintiffs as security.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 14 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29
15. In view of the fact that certain documents have been admitted by the
Defendants, does not categorically show that the transaction involved
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is of a pure loan transaction of
financial assistance, and that the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs
are only investors does stand tall.
16. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no clear
and unambiguous admission on the part of the Defendants. This Court is,
therefore, not inclined to pass any decree at this juncture.
17. The Application is dismissed.
CS(OS) 754/2023
18. List on 28.10.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
S. Zakir
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 754/2023 Page 15 of 15
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:05.09.2026
20:04:29