I-16

CS SCJ 772/21
TANU CHAUDHARY Vs. ARUN DABRA

24.03.2025
Present: Sh. Abhishek Chabra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
through VC.
Ms. Amita Kumari, Ld. Counsel for defendant.

1. By way of this order, I shall dispose off an

application under order 12 Rule 6 CPC, filed by the defendants,
seeking the following reliefs:-
“ a. Allow present Application and pass a
Decree of dismissal of the suit in favour of
the Defendants;
b. Grant costs and legal expenses in favour of
the Defendants and against the plaintiff for
causing inconvenience and maligning the
name of the Defendants by making false
allegations without any basis in the present
suit;
c. Pass any other and such order, as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”

Brief Facts:-

2. It is an admitted fact that, plaintiff and defendant

no.3 are husband and wife, and defendant no. 1 is plaintiff’s
father-in-law, whereas, defendant no.2 is plaintiff’s mother-in-
law. Plaintiff claims that, after her marriage, she had been
residing at property bearing no. 49-A, I-Block, Harinagar
Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi- 110044, (hereinafter referred to
as “the suit property”). It is claimed that plaintiff, along with

CS SCJ 772/21 TANU CHAUDHARY Vs. ARUN DABRA Page no. 1 of 5

Digitally
signed by
yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
2025.03.24
17:16:26
+0530
defendant no.1 had been residing at the suit property, after her
marriage, in 2018. However, after sometime, she was compelled
to go to Chandigarh, in order to live with defendant no.3, who
was pursuing his studies at Chandigarh. Thereafter, plaintiff
shifted to Gurgaon in October, 2019. It is claimed that ever since
her marriage to defendant no.1, she was subjected to harassment
and dowry demands by defendants. Since, defendants continued
to harass her, therefore, in 2021, she filed a complaint against the
defendants, to Haryana State Commission for Women. Since
then, plaintiff and defendants have been living separately. It is
claimed that, defendants will sell out or create third party interest
in the suit property and will permanently dispossess plaintiff
from the suit property, therefore plaintiff has filed the present
suit.

Submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties:-

3. Ld. counsel for the defendants reiterated the

contents of the application and stated that, plaintiff has admitted
in the replication, to the written statement, filed by her that she
has been shunted out from the suit property, along with her minor
daughter. They also relied upon, copy of the complaint filed by
the plaintiff to Haryana State Commission for Women, dated
21.05.2021, wherein she has mentioned her address as H. No.
987, Sector-9, Faridabad-1210006, Haryana. Based on the
aforesaid admissions, defendants claim that since plaintiff is not
residing in the suit property, hence, she is not entitled to the
reliefs as sought for by way of the present suit and plaintiff has

CS SCJ 772/21 TANU CHAUDHARY Vs. ARUN DABRA Page no. 2 of 5

Digitally
signed by
yashu yashu khurana
Date:
khurana 2025.03.24
17:16:31
+0530
failed to establish a cause of action for claiming residential rights
in the suit property.

4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant stated that,

although plaintiff is not residing in the suit property, at present,
however, the suit property is her matrimonial home and she has
residence rights in the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff is
claiming the relief as sought for in prayer clause (a) of the suit.
He also relied upon, Aadhar Card of plaintiff’s daughter, which
reflects the address of the suit property, to prove that plaintiff
used to reside at the suit property, before she went to Chandigarh
along with defendant no.3. Lastly, he stated that since there is no
admission on part of the plaintiff that she has never resided in
the suit property, therefore, defendants are not entitled to a
decree as sought for by way of the present application.

Finding and Analysis:-

5. Before delving into the merits of the present

application, it is pertinent to refer to Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which
reads as under:-
“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

CS SCJ 772/21 TANU CHAUDHARY Vs. ARUN DABRA Page no. 3 of 5

Digitally
signed by
yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
2025.03.24
17:16:42
+0530
 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.”

6. It is also pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd.
v. Daljit Singh, (2019) 20 SCC 425, wherein it was observed as
under:-
“Order 12 Rule 6 is an enabling provision. It
is not mandatory and cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. The court has to exercise its
judicial discretion keeping in mind that
judgment on admission is a judgment
without trial which permanently denies any
remedy to the defendant. Therefore, unless
admission is clear, unambiguous and
unconditional the discretion of the court
should not be exercised to deny the valuable
right of the defendant to contest the claim.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Considering the foregoing decision, it is evident that

for defendants to be entitled to a judgment on admission, they
had to prove plaintiff’s unambiguous and unequivocal admission,
that she has never resided in the suit property. However, prayer
clause (a), of the plaint, read with the replication and reply to the
present application, clearly reflects that plaintiff used to reside in
the suit property, before she shifted to Chandigarh. It also reflects
that, she is being prevented from exercising her right to reside in
the suit property, by the defendants. Thus, plaintiff has a cause of
action, to file the present suit, against the defendants.

8. Plaintiff’s admission that she is currently not

CS SCJ 772/21 TANU CHAUDHARY Vs. ARUN DABRA Page no. 4 of 5

Digitally
signed by
yashu yashu khurana
Date:
khurana 2025.03.24
17:16:46
+0530
residing at the suit property, would therefore not affect the
maintainability of the present suit or plaintiff’s cause of action to
file the present suit.

9. The cause of action in the present suit had accrued

upon the plaintiff, when she was prevented by the defendants,
from residing in the suit property, in violation of her rights.
Accordingly, it is held that defendants have failed to prove a
clear and unambiguous admission by the plaintiff, as per which
the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present
application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, is disposed of as
dismissed. Digitally
signed by
yashu khurana
yashu Date:
khurana 2025.03.24
17:16:51
+0530

(Yashu Khurana)
Civil Judge-01, South East
District, Saket, New Delhi,
24.03.2025

CS SCJ 772/21 TANU CHAUDHARY Vs. ARUN DABRA Page no. 5 of 5