Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a civil suit for recovery of possession of a plot of land in Delhi. The appellant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., operated a retail outlet on Plot No. 4/4, which was originally leased to CALTEX (India) Ltd., later merged with the appellant. The respondent, Ajay Bhatia, inherited the plot from his grandmother and filed a title suit (C.S. (OS) No. 1828 of 2006) seeking possession, alleging the lease expired in June 2003. The respondent applied for summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and the Delhi High Court passed a decree for eviction. The appellant challenged this in execution appeals, which were dismissed, leading to the Supreme Court appeal. The core legal issue was whether the High Court correctly granted summary judgment when the cause of action was not clearly established from the plaint. The respondent argued that the lease had expired, entitling him to possession, while the appellant contended that the plaint did not disclose a valid cause of action. The Supreme Court analyzed the plaint and found that the cause of action was based on the lease expiry in June 2003, but the pleadings were ambiguous and included references to future events. The Court emphasized that a cause of action must be based on existing facts, not future possibilities, and that summary judgment requires clear admissions. It held that the High Court erred in granting the decree as the plaint did not sufficiently establish the cause of action. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the summary judgment and decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Summary Judgment - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Cause of Action - The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly applied Order XII Rule 6 CPC to grant a summary judgment for eviction - The Court held that the plaint did not disclose a clear cause of action as the lease expiry date was ambiguous and the suit was based on future events, making summary judgment improper - The appeal was allowed and the decree set aside (Paras 15-21).
B) Property Law - Lease and Eviction - Cause of Action - The Court analyzed the plaint to determine if a valid cause of action existed for recovery of possession - It found that the cause of action was pleaded as the lease expiry in June 2003, but the plaint contained inconsistencies and references to future events - Held that a suit cannot be entertained without a properly pleaded cause of action based on existing facts (Paras 15-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in passing a summary judgment and decree for eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC when the cause of action was not clearly established from the plaint
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment and decree for eviction passed by the Delhi High Court
Law Points
- Cause of action must be based on existing facts
- not future events
- summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires clear admission of facts
- a suit cannot be entertained without a valid cause of action
- the court must examine the plaint to determine the existence of cause of action
Case Details
2022 LawText (SC) (9) 141
Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20718 of 2021)
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for recovery of possession of a plot of land and damages
Remedy Sought
The respondent sought a decree for recovery of possession, damages, and mesne profits from the appellant
Filing Reason
The respondent alleged that the lease of the suit property expired in June 2003 and the appellant refused to vacate
Previous Decisions
Delhi High Court passed a judgment and decree dated 21 November 2013 directing the appellant to restore the suit property to the respondent within 12 weeks; the High Court dismissed Execution First Appeals Ex. F.A. 13 of 2019 and Ex. F.A. 30 of 2019 on 24 November 2021
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in passing a summary judgment and decree for eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC when the cause of action was not clearly established from the plaint
Ratio Decidendi
A suit cannot be entertained without a valid cause of action based on existing facts; summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires clear admission of facts, and the plaint must disclose a cause of action that has arisen, not future events
Judgment Excerpts
Leave granted.
This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated 24 th November 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Execution First Appeals being Ex. F.A. 13 of 2019 and Ex. F.A. 30 of 2019 filed by the Appellant.
The Appellant is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013.
By an indenture of lease dated 15 th October 1970, Shadi Lal Bhatia, since deceased, son of Late Chaman Lal Bhatia, resident of 39, Security Police Flats, near Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi, leased out land situated at Mile 4/4, G.T. Karnal Road, Azadpur, Delhi more specifically described in the Schedule to the said indenture of lease, that is, Plot No.4/4 to M/s CALTEX (India) Ltd.
The Respondent filed a title suit being C.S. (OS) No.1828 of 2006 for recovery of possession of Plot 4/4 measuring 9700 sq. ft. situated at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi.
In the plaint, it is pleaded: “1. That the Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of a piece of land measuring 9700 sq. ft. situated at 4/4 Azadpur G.T. Road, Delhi.
That the cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants when the lease deed expired in June, 2003.”
Soon after the trial of the suit commenced, the Respondent filed an application in the suit under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking a summary judgment and order/decree for eviction of the Appellant from the suit property.
By a judgment and decree of the Delhi High Court in C.S.(O.S.) No. 1828 of 2006 dated 21 st November 2013, the Appellant was directed to restore the suit property to the Respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a title suit (C.S. (OS) No. 1828 of 2006) for recovery of possession; applied for summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC; Delhi High Court passed a decree for eviction on 21 November 2013; appellant filed execution appeals (Ex. F.A. 13 of 2019 and Ex. F.A. 30 of 2019); High Court dismissed the appeals on 24 November 2021; appellant filed special leave petition (S.L.P. (C) No. 20718 of 2021) leading to civil appeal in Supreme Court
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XII Rule 6, Section 151
- Companies Act, 2013: Section 2(45)
