Ramesh Chandra Soni v. 1. Kamal Kishore Soni

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. AAOESH VARMA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T SHARATH The Court made the following: ORDER 2(r HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.680 of 2024 ORDER: This Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

11.01.2024 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 1165 of 2023 in O.S.No. 109 of 2023

2. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for the respondent No.l. It is endorsed in the affidavit that respondent Nos.2 to 8 are not necessary parties to this Revision Petition. Perused the entire materia[ available on record.

3. The petitioner herein is del'endant No. I and respondent No.l is ptaintiff in the suit before the trial Court

4. The brief facts of the case that are relevant for adjudication of the present revision are that respondent No.1 filed a suit vide O.S.No.l09 of 2023 against the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit A 1nd B schedule properties; and also to declare the registered documJnts bearing Nos.203 ol 2016, dated 24.10.2016, 2191 of \ 2 LNA, J Cl R.P.No.680 of 2024 2018, dated 25.06.2018 and 2100 of 2009, dated 20.10.2009 and Will deed dated20.12.1994. as null and void.

5. The petitioner herein entered appearance and even before filing the written statement, he filed an application vide I.A.No.1 165 of 2023 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking dismissat of the suit, as the suit is barred by limitation. In the affidavit, filed in supporl of the said application, it is averred that the suit is filed basing on the Will deed, dated 26.12.1994, whicl.r rvas allegedly executed by one Bhawari Devi Soni in favour of respondent No.l in respect of suit schedule property; that the suit schedule property has chequered history of litigation; that there are various legal proceedings in respect of the suit schedule property pending since 2010 onwards and that respondent No. 1 is one of the contesting pafties to the said proceedings and as such, the limitation has to be computed from the date of commencement of the original litigation and hence, the present suit, filed in the year 2023, is barred by limitation and hence, the same liable to be dismissed. 3 LNA, J C.R.P.No.680 of 2O24

6. Respondent No.l filed counter-affidavit resisting the application and contended that he filed I.A.No.197 of 2018 in O.S.No.596 of 2010, seeking to implead him as party to the suit, since he has interest over suit A and B schedule properties, as per the terms of the Witl deed executed by Bhawari Devi Soni, however, the said application was dismissed on 27 -12.2021' directing to frle a separate suit. Hence, respondent No- 1 filed the present suit and that the petitioncr has no right or title to claim the interest over the suit schedule properties and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

7. The trial Cotrt vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 dismissed the application with an observation that in the light of Sections l7 and 21 of the lndian Evidence Act,1872, the admissions pleaded by the petitioner cannot be considered as proved beyond doubt and duly proved and therefore, those are not admissions. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court decided the apptication without hearing another application u I 4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.680 of2O24 filed by the petitioner i.e., vide I.A.No.5l4 of 2023 filed under Order XI Rule 6 of C.p.C. for answering the inten.ogatories. The trial Court erred in appreciating rhe contents of I.A.No. 197 of 20lg filed by rcspondent No.l in o.S.No.596 or 20r0. whereunder the admissions made by respondent No. I are not considered by the trial Court and the said application was dismissed and tl-rerefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application i.e., l.A.No.l 165 of 2023 and finally, prayed to allow the Revision petition.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.l would submit that as per Order XII Rule 6 of C.p.C., the admissions made by a party to the suit must be clear. He would further subrnit that in the present case, there are several disputed questions of facts and the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents, can be decided only after full-fledged trial of the suit. He would further submit that the lirnitation is a mixed question of fact and larv and therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed at threshold and hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application by duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Leamed 5 LNA, J C.R.P.No.680 of 2O24 counsel would finally contend that no grounds are made out to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court.

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to refer to Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. which reads as under: "Judgment on admissions:- ( 1 ) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Courl 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." 11 A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that the Court may pass judgment at any stage on the admissions made by the party, either orally or ln writing, without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties.

12. In the present case, the petitioner filed an application basing on the admissions made by respondent No. I in another suit, i'e., I.A.No.197 of 2018 filed in O.S.No.596 of 2010 I I 6 LNA, J C.R.P.No.680 of2024

13. It is also appropriate to refer to Sections 17 and 21 of the Irrdian Evidence Act, 1872, which read as hereunder: "Section I7: Admission defined; An admission is o statement, I[oral or documentary or contained in electronic forntJ, suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevont fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the c ircumstances, here inafter ment ionetl. Seclion 2L Proof of admis.tions agoinst persotts making them, and by or on their behalf: Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who mukcs thcnt, or his represenlative- in-interest,. but they connot be provecl by or on beholf of the personwho makes them or by his representativc_ in-interest. except in lhc following cases: (l) An admission may be proved by or on behalJ.oJ-the person making it, when it is . of such o nature that, if tlrc person rnaking it were dead, it would be relevanf as belween thit.cl persons under Section 32. (2) An admission may be proved by or on behol.,f of the person making it, when it consists of d statement of the existence oJ. any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, ntade at or about thc tinte when such state of mind or bod)t existetl, ancl accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable. .r (3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of rhe person making it, if it is relevant otherwtse than as an admission. I I 7 LNA, J C.R.P.No.680 of 2O24

14. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court irt. Barath Singh and another v. Bhagarth/, wherein it is held that the admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, but as per Sections 17 and2l of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,, they are not conclusive in nature. However, if the admissions are proved beyond doubt and duly proved, then irrespective of the fact whether the witness appeared in the witness box or not, the admissions are considered admissible.

15. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwanath Prasad and Olhers Vs. Dwarka Prasad and othersz.

16. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments and a conjoint reading ofSections 17 and 2l of the Indian Evidence Act, 1812, it is manifest that the admissions made by a party are not conclusive in nature, unless the same are proved beyond doubt.

17. In the present case, the petitioner filed application only basing on the purported admissions made by respondent No'l in t * 'ArR 1966 sc 405 ' (rsz+) r scc zs I I I , 8 LNA, J C.R.P.No.680 of 2O24 another proceedings, i.e., I.A.No.197 of 201g in O.S.No.596 of 2010 and no other contentions were advanced by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit as baned by limitation. l8' As rightly contended by leamed counsel for respondent No. 1, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the same can be proved only after detailed enquiry, therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed at threshold without examining the pleadings and contentions urged by the plaintiff in the suit. 19. In the light of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Revision is devoid of merits and the petitioner failed to point out any irregularity and illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

20. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD1- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, //TRUE COPY//

1. XXV Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI. AADESH VARMA Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRI T SHARATH Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CopieswGSA/gh I 1dE S lal t so( o (J 2I JlJt 206 r(' r\ _.'' .,y'' iC-\t{\'-."''' HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 ORDER CRP.No.680 of 2024 DISMISSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS .,1 { tal 7