Disposed¶16

Rajive Sawhney (Deceased) through Lrs & Anr. v. Devika Mehra

Delhi HC9 Feb 2026FAO(OS)/12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Burden of proof and onus; Order XIV Rule 5 CPC; reframing of issues; effect of duly proved admissions in shifting onus; dynamic/shifting nature of burden of proof; limitation as preliminary issue before Trial Court; FAO(OS) 12/2024; CM APPL. 4571/2024; suit CS(OS) 212/20218; Delhi High Court; Division Bench order dated 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the appeal along with pending application(s) was disposed of without interference and without expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the appeal, with liberty reserved to the Appellants to approach the Trial Court for limitation as a preliminary issue. ¶16

Rajive Sawhney (Deceased) through Lrs & Anr. Vs Devika Mehra — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the placement of the onus of proof upon the Appellants under the relevant issue was warranted, despite certain alleged admissions made by the Respondent in prior proceedings.

¶10

Court's answer

Where averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint are specifically denied by the defendant in the written statement, the initial burden to establish such issues necessarily lies upon the plaintiff.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Admissions, once duly proved and brought on record, operate to shift the onus upon the party against whom such admissions are relied upon, requiring an explanation thereof; the burden of proof is not static but dynamic and shifts in accordance with the evidence led by the parties.

¶14

Key takeaways

Once a party discharges its burden in proving a particular fact, the onus correspondingly shifts upon the other side to rebut or disprove the same; merely because the initial burden in respect of certain issues rests upon the plaintiff does not render the burden immutable throughout.ratio¶15
In view of the settled legal position on the shifting of burden of proof, the Division Bench found the present case not to be one warranting interference at this stage.ratio¶15
It remains open to the Appellants to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court for consideration of the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue, which the Trial Court shall decide in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar JJ.) disposed of FAO(OS) 12/2024, CM APPL. 4571/2024, which challenged the Single Judge's order dated 28.11.2023 in CS(OS) 212/20218 dismissing the appellants' application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for reframing of issues. The Court reiterated that where plaint averments are specifically denied in the written statement the initial burden lies on the plaintiff, but that duly proved admissions shift the onus onto the party against whom they are relied, and that the burden of proof is dynamic, shifting with the evidence led. Finding no case warranting interference at this stage, the Bench disposed of the appeal and pending applications without expressing any opinion on maintainability, leaving the appellants free to seek consideration of limitation as a preliminary issue before the Trial Court.

¶1

$~10

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 12/2024, CM APPL. 4571/2024

¶3

RAJIVE SAWHNEY (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR.

¶4

.....Appellants Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Imran Moulaye, Adv.

¶5

versus DEVIKA MEHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Anant Chaitanya Dutta, Mr. Rishabh Mishra and Mr. Karan Deep Singh, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 09.02.2026 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 212/20218 where by the application filed by the appellant under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking reframing of the issues in the above-mentioned suit, was dismissed.

¶10

The sole grievance urged by the Appellants before this Court is with respect to the placement of onus of proof upon them under the relevant issue, despite certain alleged admissions made by the Respondent in prior proceedings.

¶11

It is a settled principle that where averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint are specifically denied by the defendant in the written statement, the initial burden to establish such issues necessarily lies upon the plaintiff.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 16/02/2026 at 12:46:48

¶14

Equally well-settled is the principle that admissions, once duly proved and brought on record, operate to shift the onus upon the party against whom such admissions are relied upon, requiring an explanation thereof. The burden of proof under the law is not static; it is dynamic and shifts in accordance with the evidence led by the parties.

¶15

Once a party discharges its burden in proving a particular fact, the onus correspondingly shifts upon the other side to rebut or disprove the same and such. Merely because the initial burden in respect of certain issues rests upon the plaintiff does not render the burden immutable throughout. In view of this settled legal position, we do not find the present case to be one warranting interference at this stage.

¶16

Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the present appeal, the appeal along with the pending application(s) stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶17

Needless to clarify, it shall remain open to the Appellants to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court, should they so desire, for consideration of the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue, which shall decide the said application in accordance with law.

¶18

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J

¶19

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ p /my

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 16/02/2026 at 12:46:48

Rajive Sawhney (Deceased) through Lrs & Anr. v. Devika Mehra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajive Sawhney (Deceased) through Lrs & Anr. v. Devika Mehra

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

Mrs Amita Kishore Mansukhani Vs Sh Vikram Krishna and Ors.

Manak Chand Jain Vs Love Jain & Anr.

M/S Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. Vs Satish Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

M/S Ravi Builders Vs UOI through General Manager Northern Railway

Smt. Sunita Chawla (Legal Heirs of Late Sh. Gulshan Chawla) & Ors. Vs Mrs. Krishna Chawla (Since Deceased) through Her Legal Heirs & Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

Pt Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rail India Technical & Economic Services

Manjit Singh Kochhar Vs Harjit Singh Kochhar & Ors.

M/S Nishi Land Park Ltd. & Ors. Vs Edelweiss Assets Reconstructions Co. Ltd.

Mrs Amita Kishore Mansukhani Vs Sh Vikram Krishna and Ors.

Gajraj Singh Vs Kiran Sharma

M/S Nuray Realtech Private Limited Vs Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.

Seema Sharma Vs Sourav Sharma

Uba Realtech Private Limited Vs Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.