RAJESH vs SUNIL GANGWAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30th April, 2025 + CM(M) 4121/2024 RAJESH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anubhav Dadhich, Advocate. versus SUNIL GANGWAL .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM APPL. 25691/2025 (seeking early hearing) 1. Petitioner seeks early hearing and disposal of the petition in question. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the fact that there is clear-cut admission made by the defendant, it is a fit case where the learned Trial Court should have allowed his application moved under order XII Rule 6 CPC. 3. In view of the request made by the learned counsel for petitioner, the matter is taken up today itself. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CM(M) 4121/2024 5. Petitioner had filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs.6.90 lacs against the defendant. The suit was earlier filed under Order XXXVII CPC but on the request of the plaintiff himself, the suit was converted into an ordinary one. 6. Admittedly, the written statement has already been filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 4121/2024 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:01.05.2025 16:51:54 defendant and he was also examined by the learned Trial Court under Order X CPC read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 168 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Based on his such examination, the plaintiff contends that, since, there is clear cut and unambiguous admission with respect to the execution of pro-note in question, there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to have dismissed the application. 7. Right here, this Court would clarify that the power vested with any such Court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary in nature and no party can clai