Anand Sharma Vs Rajendra Kumar Mohatta — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anand Sharma Vs Rajendra Kumar Mohatta — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of: impugned Judgment dated 10.09.2025 set aside; case remanded to the learned Trial Court to decide the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC first and then the Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, both within four months; parties directed to appear before learned District Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 18.05.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment decreeing possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is sustainable when the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been kept pending.

Court's answer

The impugned Judgment dated 10.09.2025 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

On remand, the Trial Court is to first decide the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and thereafter the Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter by deciding both Applications within four months.ratio¶¶21
The submission that the impugned order was patently illegal because the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application had been kept pending was indicated to be not necessarily correct; the appeal was nonetheless disposed of on the parties' submissions without full argument on merits.obiter¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Neena Bansal Krishna, J.), RFA 918/2025 (with CM APPL. 61562/2025, CM APPL.61563/2025), decided 12.05.2026: In a landlord-tenant dispute, the Regular First Appeal against the Trial Court's judgment dated 10.09.2025, which passed a Decree of Possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC while an Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC remained kept pending for hearing, was allowed to the extent that the impugned judgment was set aside and the case remanded to the learned Trial Court to first decide the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application and then the Order 12 Rule 6 CPC application, both within four months. The Respondent (aged 82 years per counsel's submission) raised no objection; the Suit otherwise remains pending for Mesne Profits, Recovery of Arrears and Interest. Parties directed to appear before District Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 18.05.2026.

$~20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- RFA 918/2025, CM APPL. 61562/2025, CM APPL.61563/2025

ANAND SHARMA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma and Mr Mohd Aman Khan Afghani, Advocates.

versus

RAJENDRA KUMAR MOHATTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bharat Ahuja, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 12.05.2026 1. Regular First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 10.09.2025 whereby in a landlord-tenant dispute the Decree of Possession has been passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant states that there was an Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has also been filed which has been kept for hearing, even though the Suit has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

Learned counsel for the Respondent clarifies that the Suit is still pending for Mesne Profits, Recovery of Arrears and Interest.

Essentially, to say that the Order is patently illegal as the Application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC has been kept pending, may not be correct. 5. Learned Senior Advocate seeks adjournment to address arguments on the main Appeal.

Learned counsel for the Respondent states that he has No Objection if

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 15/05/2026 at 12:39:46

the Appeal is allowed and the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the Application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC and thereafter Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

It is submitted that the Respondent is an aged person of 82 years. It is a simplicitor case of landlord-tenant and, therefore, time may be fixed for deciding both the Applications.

Submissions heard and record perused .

In view of the submissions made, the impugned Judgment dated 10.09.2025 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to first decide Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and then Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

The learned Trial Court shall dispose of the matter deciding both the Application, within four months.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

The parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 18.05.2026.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

MAY 12, 2026/VA

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 15/05/2026 at 12:39:46