BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs RAJWANT SINGH & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~O-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 466/2020 Date of Decision: 19.02.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. Nitesh Dhankar, Advs. versus RAJWANT SINGH & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Amit Punj and Mr. Archit Arora, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) I.A. 3160/2024 (filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC) 1. Heard Mr. Jaideep Malik, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Amit Punj, learned counsel appearing for the defendants. 2. Mr. Malik while taking this Court through the written statement tries to indicate that the defendants have taken inconsistent stands in their written statement inasmuch as he has not denied the execution of the agreement dated 27.04.2009 and 04.05.2010. He specifically placed reliance on paragraph Nos.6 (ii to vi), 10, 11 & 18 and contends that if the execution of the agreement dated 04.05.2010 and the challenge thereto, has failed in civil Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed Signing Date:21.02.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 16:08:30 KUMAR KAURAV suit bearing No. 10/2023, the suit be decreed construing the admission of the defendants in terms of the order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure [‘CPC’]. 3. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record. 4. A bare perusal of the provisions of order XII Rule 6 of the CPC would indicate that the Court must, at the outset, determine whether the admission of the fact is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In case, the issue raised involved mixed questions of fact and law, such an issue must be resolved by allowing the parties to adduce