Supreme Court holds Order XII Rule 6 CPC authorises dismissal on Court's own motion; appeal against dismissal of partition suit is dismissed

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Sanjay Karol heard an appeal by Saroj Salkan challenging the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of her partition suit. The appeal arose from a Special Leave Petition against a Division Bench judgment upholding a Single Judge’s order that dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and granted liberty to approach the competent court at Sonepat, Haryana for partition of the Barota land.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the courts below. The Court held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC authorised the Court to pass judgment or dismiss a suit at any stage and “that too on its own motion i.e. without any application being filed by any party.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court. Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing.” The Court also emphasised the finality of earlier decrees, noting that “a decree by a Court of law is for all purposes final and binding upon all parties, including the appellant... Such a decree, if not set aside is for perpetuity.”

Background The appellant sued under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for partition, injunction and accounts in respect of five properties allegedly held by her late father, Major General Budh Singh: (a) Barota land (approx. 72 acres with farmhouse), (b) 11 acres at Kalupur, (c) 8 bigha dairy plot at Sonepat, (d) Bhatgaon land (30 acres), and (e) house C‑38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. After pleadings, the Single Judge dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, finding that parts of the plaint lacked particulars required by Order VII and that no cause of action arose in respect of certain properties; the Court also held that Barota land lay in Sonepat and should be litigated there in view of Section 16 CPC.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, observing that the appellant had not overcome fundamental defects of pleadings and limitation and had not meaningfully challenged the authorities relied upon. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that dismissal should have been under Order VII Rule 11 only and that Order XII Rule 6 could not be invoked suo motu; she also argued that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (2005) applied retroactively as explained in Vineeta Sharma (2020). Respondents relied on multiple prior suits and decrees (Suits I–IV, spanning 1972–1984) which, they said, established that the properties had been partitioned or reverted to the father and that some transactions were admitted or implemented decades earlier.

The Supreme Court reviewed the four earlier decrees and contemporaneous pleadings. It found that the earlier proceedings operated to vest ownership or effect partition before 20 December 2004 and that the appellant and her sister were aware of and bound by those decrees. The Court held that the amended Section 6 did not assist the appellant because the partitional incidents predated the saving proviso to amended Section 6; it further held that challenge to the registered sub‑lease and long‑standing possession of C‑38 was barred by limitation. The Court also recorded that Respondent No.6’s antecedent sale transactions estopped her from contesting co‑parcenary of Barota land. Concluding that the appeal lacked merit, the Court dismissed it.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6389 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023) Case Title: Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Counsel; Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Counsel; Mr. Narendra Prabhakar, Counsel