Reliefs Under Section 6 of SRA Cannot Be Clubbed with Other Claims - Delhi High Court Clarifies

High Court sets aside trial court’s order to stay proceedings, directs continuation of declaratory and injunctive suit.

The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order that stayed proceedings in a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction. The judgment, delivered by Justice Shalinder Kaur, clarifies the distinct legal frameworks and procedural requirements under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), and other declaratory suits, thereby directing the trial court to resume the proceedings in CS/SCJ/117/2020.

The petitioner, Ajay Medi, challenged an order dated April 15, 2021, issued by the Civil Judge-03 of South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, which stayed his suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This stay was based on the pendency of a previously instituted suit (CS/ADJ/749/2018) for possession under Section 6 of the SRA, filed by the petitioner against the same respondent, Hemant Mehta.

The case originated from an agreement dated February 3, 2011, where Pramila Devi, the deceased mother of the petitioner, agreed to sell a property in Janakpuri, New Delhi, to the respondent for ₹1,89,00,000, with a stipulation to complete the payment by June 3, 2011. The respondent failed to pay the full amount, leading to a breach of contract and subsequent legal actions.

Justice Kaur highlighted the summary nature of proceedings under Section 6 of the SRA, which addresses claims of forcible dispossession without delving into questions of title. The court noted that Section 6 suits focus solely on the fact of dispossession, and relief under this section must be sought within six months of the alleged dispossession. Additionally, orders under Section 6 are not subject to appeal, emphasizing their expedited nature.

The court underscored that reliefs sought under Section 6 of the SRA cannot be combined with other claims such as declaration and injunction due to their distinct legal processes and potential for conflicting decisions. Justice Kaur referred to precedents, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling in Adapa Tatarao vs. Chamantula Mahalakshmi and the Delhi High Court's judgment in Qayamuddin vs. Jamil-Ud-Din, which reinforce that Section 6 suits are meant for summary relief and should not be mixed with other claims that require detailed examination.

Justice Kaur stated, "The purpose behind Section 6 of Specific Relief Act is to restrain a person from using force to dispossess the other without his consent, otherwise than in due course of law." This principle underscores the court's reasoning in keeping the summary nature of Section 6 distinct from other legal claims.

By setting aside the trial court's stay order, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the separate procedural paths for claims under Section 6 of the SRA and other civil suits. This judgment allows the continuation of CS/SCJ/117/2020, enabling the petitioner to seek declaratory and injunctive reliefs. This decision emphasizes the judiciary's commitment to maintaining clarity and procedural integrity in handling multifaceted legal disputes.

Date of Decision: April 26, 2024
Ajay Medi vs. Hemant Mehta