Disposed¶44

Manjoor Alam v. Sabir Qureshi

Delhi HC2 Dec 2025RSA/22/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA 22/2023; Manjoor Alam v. Sabir Qureshi; High Court of Delhi; regular second appeal; Section 100 CPC; Order XII Rule 6 CPC decree on admissions; Order X / Order X Rule 2 CPC statement; Section 340 CrPC application dismissal; Section 50 DRC Act jurisdiction bar; rent Rs.5,000/- vs Rs.3,000/- per month; volunteered statement not an admission; questions of law academic; suit remanded and at advanced stage; appeal disposed without opinion on merits; Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani; decided 02.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the second appeal was disposed of without adjudication on the merits, leaving the trial court free to decide the remanded suit in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶44

Manjoor Alam Vs Sabir Qureshi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether a judgment passed in a civil suit and an order passed in an application under section 340 CrPC can be challenged in the same appeal under section 96 read with Order XLI CPC. +6 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering the factual narrative, the questions of law proposed in the memo of appeal do not require consideration in the present case.

¶39

Key takeaways

The questions of law raised in the appeal have been rendered academic because the suit, remanded to the trial court, is pending at a very advanced stage with evidence concluded.ratio¶39
The statement that the rent was Rs.5,000/- per month was volunteered by the appellant himself in his own cross-examination and cannot be construed as an admission on the part of the respondent.ratio¶27
The respondent's statement dated 20.11.2017 under Order X Rule 2 CPC contains no admission that the rent was Rs.5,000/- per month; he only asserted that he paid Rs.3,000/- per month.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.) disposed of a regular second appeal under section 100 CPC by the plaintiff-landlord challenging the first appellate court's judgment dated 03.09.2022 in RCA DJ No.27/2022, which allowed the defendant-tenant's appeal against the trial court's Order XII Rule 6 CPC decree in Suit No.8181/2016 and dismissed the defendant's Section 340 Cr.P.C. application. Holding that the proposed questions of law (including whether a Section 340 Cr.P.C. order can be challenged in an appeal under section 96 read with Order XLI CPC, decree under Order 12 rule 6 CPC on admissions, and the Section 50 DRC Act plea) neither required consideration nor survived, the court found them rendered academic since the suit, remanded to the trial court, was pending at an advanced stage with evidence concluded. The court observed that the appellant's volunteered statement in his own cross-examination fixing rent at Rs.5,000/- per month could not be treated as the respondent's admission, and that the respondent's Order X statement showed no such admission, he having asserted payment of Rs.3,000/- per month and alleged the rent agreement to be forged and fabricated. Expressly leaving the merits open, the court disposed of the appeal, permitting the trial court to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶1

$~33

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 22/2023

¶3

MANJOOR ALAM .....Appellant

¶4

Through: Mr. Shivang Rawat, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

SABIR QURESHI .....Respondent

¶7

Through: Ms. Payal Jain and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates.

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R 02.12.2025

¶10

By way of the present second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellant impugns judgment/order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge - 08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in appeal bearing RCA DJ No.27/2022 whereby the respondent’s appeal against judgment and decree dated 04.03.2022 passed by the learned JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (West) in suit bearing No. 8181/2016 has been allowed. The appellant has also challenged judgment dated 03.09.2022 insofar as it dismisses a miscellaneous application bearing No.29553/2016 filed by the respondent under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’).

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

RSA 22/2023 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 23/12/2025 at 14:42:37

¶13

The court has heard Mr. Shivang Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (plaintiff) as well as Ms. Payal Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (defendant).

¶14

In this backdrop, Mr. Rawat has drawn attention to the proposed questions of law set-out in para-3 of the memo of appeal. The proposed questions of law are as follows:

¶15

“ 1. Whether the judgement passed in a civil suit and order passed in application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be challenged in same appeal under section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

¶16

2. Whether the defence raised in written statement can be considered in the favour after (sic) the Defendant after the defence is struck off?

¶17

3. Whether the court can decree the suit under Order 12 rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after the landlord and tenant relationship is admitted and the amount of rent in proved in chief and cross examination?

¶18

4. Whether the plea of section 50 of the DRC Act can be raised after the Defendant’s defence is struck off in the absence of any documentary evidence or oral evidence?

¶19

5. Whether the appeal against dismissal of the application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 can be filed under section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

¶20

6. Whether the Appellant court can set aside passed the order passed under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without giving any reasons? ”

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the course of his cross-examination on 22.01.2021, the appellant has said that the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs.5,000/- per month. In this behalf, Mr. Rawat has drawn attention to the following statement that has

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

¶24

come to be recorded in the course of cross-examination of the appellant before the learned trial court:

¶25

“ It is incorrect to say that the property was given on rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Vol. The rent was Rs. 5,000/- per month. ”

¶26

Counsel submits, that the aforesaid statement amounts to the respondent having admitted that the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs.5,000/- per month. It is argued that since the landlord-tenant relationship stood admitted and the rate of rent was also admitted as being Rs. 5,000/- per month, the learned trial court was correct in decreeing the appellant’s suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the learned first appellate court committed error in overturning that judgment.

¶27

Clearly, the appellant’s submission referred to above, proceeds on a complete misunderstanding and misconstruction of what has come to be recorded in the course of the appellant’s own cross-examination before the learned trial court. The rate of rent at Rs. 5000/- per month has come to be recorded as what was volunteered by the appellant himself ; and not as a suggestion put to the appellant on behalf of the respondent. Such a volunteered statement made by the appellant himself, cannot possibly be construed as an admission on the part of the respondent.

¶28

Furthermore, the learned trial court has proceeded on the basis of what it has called ‘admissions’ contained in the written statement filed by the respondent; as well as ‘admissions’ made in the respondent’s statement recorded under Order X CPC. In this regard, the learned first appellate court has observed as follows:

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

¶31

“ 18. Vide order dt. 12.10.2015 Ld. Trial Court has framed a specific issue of jurisdiction of the Court being barred in view of Section 50 of DRC Act. However, in the impugned judgment, no finding has been given by the Ld. Trial Court on the said issue. On the contrary, the impugned judgment was passed U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC on its own motion after holding that there are admissions on the part of defendant in the Written Statement as well as in his examination conducted Under Order 10 CPC by the Court on 20.11.2017 and also on the basis of overall facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. Trial Court has held that since the case was filed on 22.05.2013, and since then till today, it cannot be assumed that the rent of the tenanted premises shall remain Rs. 3000/- only which comprises ground plus two floors having three rooms, three lobbies, one kitchen, bathroom etc. and from no stretch of imagination it can be said that in today's inflated time, the rent of suit premises can be Rs. 3000/- only. Ld. Trial Court has also observed that even a single room rent in Uttam Nagar locality in unauthorized locality cannot be less than Rs. 3000/- per month and the defence of Appellant was held to be not plausible and believable in any manner. The Ld. Trial Court has also observed that Court has to consider the last 10 years also for increment of the rent and can consider the market rate of rent U/o 15A CPC. However, it has failed to consider the implication of Section 50 Delhi Rent Control Act despite specific plea is taken by the appellant. ”

¶32

(emphasis supplied)

¶33

A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent, as well as his statement dated 20.11.2017 recorded under Order X CPC as available in the trial court record, however show that the respondent has specifically taken the objection as regards maintainability of the suit in view of the rate of rent being Rs. 3,000/- per month. The rate of rent admitted by the respondent in his written statement is only of Rs. 3000/- per month; and in fact, the respondent has challenged the rent agreement sought to be relied upon by the appellant, alleging the same to be forged and fabricated. It was in this context that the

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

¶36

respondent had moved the application under section 340 Cr.P.C. against the appellant.

¶37

Furthermore, insofar as the respondent’s statement dated 20.11.2017 recorded by the learned trial court under Order X Rule 2 CPC is concerned, a perusal thereof shows, that there is nothing by way of any admission that the rate of rent was Rs. 5,000/- per month; and the respondent has only asserted that he paid Rs. 3,000/- per month to the appellant.

¶38

Learned counsel for the parties also inform the court, that after being remanded by the learned first appellate court, the suit has proceeded further; that evidence has been concluded in the proceedings; and the learned trial court is now awaiting disposal of the present regular second appeal, for it to conclude the matter.

¶39

Viewed in light of what has been recorded above, this court is of the opinion, that firstly , considering the factual narrative obtaining in the matter, the questions of law proposed in the memo of appeal do not require consideration in the present case. Secondly , now that the learned trial court has proceeded with the suit after the matter was remitted back to it, and the matter is pending at a very advanced stage before the learned trial court, it is not considered necessary to delve into the questions of law raised in the present appeal, since those have been rendered academic.

¶40

As a sequitur to the above, this court does not consider it necessary or advisable to entertain the present second appeal, which is accordingly disposed-of.

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

¶43

It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; and the learned trial court shall be at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶44

The appeal is disposed-of.

¶45

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed-of.

¶46

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶47

DECEMBER 2, 2025/ ss

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

RSA 22/2023

¶50

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 23/12/2025 at 14:42:37

Manjoor Alam v. Sabir Qureshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjoor Alam v. Sabir Qureshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy Registrar (Exam-Iii) Sed, Ignou Vs Dr. Urvashi Arora

Om Prakash Goenka Vs Madan Mohan

Mr. Suresh Kansal Vs Mr. Suresh Chand Jain

Dinesh Soni Vs Ram Nayan Singh (Since Deceased) through His Legal Heirs) Sh. Anoop Singh

Sh. Paramjeet Singh Vs Sh. Gaurav Sen

Chittranjan Singh Mann Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.