The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Sheikh Abedin and upheld the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court of Delhi whereby a decree for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property was passed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The respondents had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an open plot of land admeasuring 260 sq. yards at Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, claiming ownership through documents executed by the original owner. According to the plaintiffs, the petitioner was permitted to occupy the plot only as a caretaker/chowkidar. When he refused to vacate, the suit was filed. During the proceedings, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Trial Court, relying upon the petitioner’s admission in the complaint dated 28.07.2009 (which led to registration of FIR No.178/2009), wherein he had categorically acknowledged the plaintiffs’ ownership and his own status as caretaker, passed a decree directing him to hand over possession within one month. The First Appellate Court and the High Court affirmed the said decree.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed on the basis of an admission, whether contained in the pleadings or made elsewhere, and such admission may be in writing or even oral. No particular form of admission is necessary. The purport of the Rule is to enable a party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of the relevant admission. Referring to Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120, the Court reiterated that admissions on which judgment can be claimed must be clear and unequivocal.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had, in clear terms, admitted in the complaint lodged by him that the first respondent was the owner of the suit property and that he had been inducted as a caretaker by the second respondent. This admission was exhibited in the criminal proceedings and stood proved. The courts below were fully justified in relying upon the said admission for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC qua the relief of possession. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the three courts below.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The execution proceedings were directed to proceed further expeditiously in accordance with law. The interim stay granted earlier stood vacated.
Case Details:
Title: Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 19868 of 2022
Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Order: 07.05.2026
Click HERE for full ORDER.
Lawcutor 