$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1570/2026, CM APPL. 46605/2026 & CM APPL. 46606/2026 SHIRIN NAYYAR THROUGH HER SPA SUSHIL KUMAR RAWLLEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv. versus DHEERAJ NAYYAR .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. The present petition assails the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CS DJ No. 590/2018, titled ‘Shirin Nayyar v. Dheeraj Nayyar & Anr’, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit seeking a decree of declaration, possession, and permanent injunction against her divorced husband, i.e. the respondent, in respect of the third floor and terrace rights of the property bearing No. H-9/5, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. One of the principal reliefs sought in the suit is a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2016, executed by the respondent in his own favour while acting as the petitioner’s attorney, is null and void. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:26:14 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, asserting that the respondent had made admissions in his written statement, which stood acknowledged in the registered documents filed by the petitioner. 4. The learned Trial Court considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the stand taken by the respondent in the written statement. The respondent contended that the registered Gift Deed dated 26.06.2014 executed in favour of the petitioner was merely a nominal arrangement pursuant to a family understanding. It was further pleaded that the power of attorney constituted an agency coupled with interest within the meaning of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, on the premise that the construction of the third floor had been financed through the respondent’s personal bank loans and contributions made by his mother. The respondent also questioned the validity of the revocation of the General Power of Attorney dated 14.07.2016 on the ground of non-compliance with Sections 206 and 208 of the Indian Contract Act. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the registered instruments, the learned Trial Court held that there was no clear, unambiguous, or unequivocal admission on the part of the respondent. It was further observed that the recitals contained in the Sale Deed, particularly those relating to the source of funds for construction and the absence of consideration, gave rise to disputed questions of fact and law requiring adjudication upon appreciation of evidence. 6. In view of the aforesaid triable issues, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the case did not warrant the passing of a judgment on admission. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:26:14 7. The relevant observations of the learned Trial Court read as under: “16. The plaintiff has prayed in her application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for a relief of declaration, possession and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, however the present court is of the opinion that the defendant has not made any clear or definite admission about the important facts claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is asking for a decree based on supposed admissions in the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2016. However, the defendant has clearly denied all these claims and has raised some questions of fact and law which can only be decided after appreciation of evidence as led by both the parties. These contentions cannot be decided summarily. Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be used only when the admission is clear and leaves no doubt, but in this case, the defendant’s denials show that the main issues are disputed and need evidence. Therefore, the application cannot be allowed at this stage.” 8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has committed a material irregularity by failing to appreciate that the Sale Deed itself contains express admissions on the part of the respondent acknowledging that the petitioner had raised construction over the third floor from her own funds. It is further contended that an attorney acting under a power of attorney is legally precluded from executing a conveyance in his own favour for personal benefit. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the present case does not even warrant issuance of notice. 11. Having perused the record and considered the submissions advanced, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 12. It is well settled that a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed only where the admission is categorical, unequivocal, unconditional, and unambiguous. Where the admission requires interpretation, has to be tested in the light of rival pleadings, or is intertwined with disputed This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:26:14 questions of fact, the Court cannot dispense with a trial. 13. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Pushpa v. Dayawati, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1013, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, “33. A plain reading of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC indicates that the provision confers a discretionary power upon the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of admission made either in pleadings or otherwise however the exercise of such power is conditioned upon the existence of a clear admission of fact. The object of the provision is to enable a party to obtain speedy relief where there is no substantial dispute requiring trial. At the same time, the provision cannot be invoked in a manner so as to deprive a party of adjudication where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. 34. The term “admission” has been defined under Sections 17 and 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872, an admission is a statement which suggests any inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact and is made by a party to the proceeding or by a person authorised by such party however every statement made by a party cannot automatically result in a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Thus, the admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. 35. This Court in several decisions has consistently held that before passing a decree on admission, the Court must be fully satisfied that the admission relied upon leaves no room for controversy and if the alleged admission requires interpretation, inferential reasoning or examination of surrounding circumstances, the matter ought to proceed to trial and it is similarly well settled that where substantial triable issues arise, the parties cannot be denied the opportunity to lead evidence.” 14. Reliance may also be placed upon, Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., (2011) 15 SCC 273 “11. It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:26:14 contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a clear “admission” which can be acted upon. (See also Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India [(2000) 7 SCC 120] , Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust [(2010) 4 SCC 753 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 262] and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha [(2010) 6 SCC 601 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 745] .) There is no such admission in this case.” 15. It is equally well settled that a judgment on admission cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC being purely discretionary. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the specific pleas raised by the respondent in the written statement, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the matter raises triable issues requiring adjudication upon evidence. No jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity is discernible in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed in limine. AJAY DIGPAUL, J JULY 23, 2026/ar/as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:26:14