Introduction:

In the case of Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority (CS(COMM) 582/2021), the Delhi High Court under Justice Vikas Mahajan declined to pass a summary judgment sought by the plaintiff, Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (“Reliance”), which had moved under Order XXIII‑A, Rule 4 CPC for a summary decree against the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), seeking ₹4,59,73,61,098/- plus pendente lite and future interest, following a lapsed land acquisition and alleged dispossession from an auction plot.

Arguments:

Reliance argued that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed by judicial order, thereby extinguishing DDA’s title, and thus sought automatic refund of the amount paid at the auction—asserting DDA had no defense to its claim and summary relief was appropriate. Conversely, DDA contested that the plot remained in physical possession and control of Reliance, that title over the land had not been restored unless DDA had ejective possession, and that DDA’s duties ceased after delivery to the auction purchaser.

Judgement:

The Court emphasized that for summary judgment under Order XXIII‑A CPC, the plaintiff must show the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and that no compelling reason exists to require oral evidence. However, Justice Mahajan noted that possession remained a central and contested issue—whether Reliance had indeed surrendered the land to DDA, or was still in possession—and that determining which party holds rightful and physical possession was imperative before any question of refund could be adjudicated. The Court held that “merely because the rightful owner has not claimed possession of the plot from DDA will not absolve DDA from its obligation to hand over physical possession”—instead, reliance must first show either that it returned possession to DDA, or that the rightful owner regained control; only then could entitlement to refund be considered. Given this fact‑intensive and triable issue, and conflicting pleadings on dispossession, the Court found that DDA’s defence could not be deemed “baseless and illusory,” and that the summary procedure was inappropriate “where recording of oral evidence appears imperative,” especially on contested factual questions like possession. Consequently, the High Court refused Reliance’s application for summary judgment, directed that the main suit involving issues of possession and entitlement proceed through regular trial processes, and listed the matter before the roster bench for further hearing on August 28. The judgment reaffirms that even in commercial disputes, summary proceedings cannot override essential factual disputes—particularly when possession of immovable property is central—and underscores that refund claims following lapsed acquisitions must grapple with real, contested facts, not be resolved purely on paper.