Commercial courts may grant summary judgment where defendants lack real prospects of success and trial is unnecessary.

The Appellant purchased a freehold commercial plot from the Respondent (DDA) via public auction in 2007 for Rs. 164.91 crores

A Conveyance Deed was executed and registered in 2008

In 2016, the Delhi High Court declared the original land acquisition by the DDA as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the lapse but granted the DDA six months (until November 2017) to re-acquire the land, failing which possession was to be returned to the original owner

The DDA failed to re-acquire the land

The Appellant filed a commercial suit for recovery of the sale consideration and taxes

The Appellant subsequently filed an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC, which the High Court dismissed on the ground that the issue of "possession" was a triable factual dispute

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC in the present facts and circumstances

2. Whether the dispute regarding physical possession of the plot constitutes a "compelling reason" or a "real prospect of success" for the defense to warrant a full trial

The Court primarily applied Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), which allows for summary judgment if a party has "no real prospect of succeeding" and there is no "compelling reason" for a trial

It relied on the "Real Prospect of Success" test from the English decision in Swain v. Hillman

The House of Lords decision in Three Rivers District Council, which cautions against "mini-trials" while encouraging the disposal of claims that are "fanciful" or "bound to fail"

The Court also invoked the principle of Restitution and Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice

The Court observed that Order XIII-A was designed to improve efficiency in commercial disputes by avoiding unnecessary trials where the defense is "illusory"

Applying this to the facts, the Court found the DDA’s defense regarding "possession" to be "fanciful" because the legal acquisition had conclusively lapsed, meaning title had reverted to the original owner by operation of law and court orders

The Court held that the High Court erred in making the refund of the auction price contingent upon the return of possession, as the DDA no longer had a legal interest in the land to protect

Furthermore, the Court rejected the limitation defense, noting that the right to sue accrued only after the DDA failed to re-acquire the land within the court-mandated six-month window

Since the foundational facts (auction, payment, and judicial declaration of lapse) were admitted, no oral evidence was required to determine the Appellant's right to a refund

Exercising powers under Article 142, the Court set aside the 2008 Conveyance Deed to effectuate mutual restitution. The DDA was ordered to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 164,91,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of payment (12.07.2007) until realization. The Appellant was permitted to withdraw the Rs. 186 crores already deposited by the DDA in the High Court, with the balance to be paid within eight weeks