Dena Bank Vs. Blndal Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case dealt with an application filed by the plaintiff under order 12 rule 6 of the civil procedure code, 1908, for passing of decree on admission by the defendant of suit amount - the defendant, had opposed the application on the ground that the defendants had opposed the application, on the ground that the suit involved questions of fact that cannot be disposed off under order 12 rule 6 of the code, unless and until evidence was placed in support - there being no clear and unequivocal admission by the defendants, it was ruled that decree cannot be passed under order 12 rule 6 of the code - p.n. nag, j.(1) in this application under order 12 . rule 6 of the code of civil procedure. 1908. the plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree on the basis of admission of the suit amount. (2) the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of rs. 21,76,110.39 with pendente lite and future interest. according to the plaintiff, the defendants in the written statement in reply to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint, while admitting that loans and advances were availed of by them. stated that there was no mala fide intention on. behalf of the defendants in being irregular in the matter of payment of advances made. it was also stated in these paras that it is only due to financial constraints that the defendants were compelled to be irregular in the matter of accounts. it has been admitted by the defendants that they have every desire to return the correct amount to the plaintiff. further, the plaintiff has stated that admission/denial of documents carried out by the defendants in january, 1990, balance confirmation dated 31-7-1981, wherein debts up to 30-6-1981 have been acknowledged by the defendants, has been admitted on behalf of the defendants i to 6. from the above, the plaintiff wants to demonstrate that the defendants have admitted the whole amount and on the basis of the admission by the defendants, the suit deserves to be decreed under order 12 rule 6 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. (3) the defendants have opposed this application on various grounds. the principal ground taken by them is that the suit involves questions of fact which cannot be disposed of on motion under order 12 rule 6 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 and without leading evidence in support of the above fact. (4) vide order dated 18th april, 1985 the following issues were framed in the suit : '1. was the plaint signed and verified by an authorised person opp 2. did the defendants sign blank documents or pitted forms without filling m the blanks it so. what is its effect opd 3. are the defendants entitled to any relief in respect of interest under the usurious loan act and lor punjab relief of indebt ness act as extended to union territory of delhi if so what relief opd 4. to what rate of interest is the plaintiff entitled -opp is the plaintiff not entitled to compound interest or penal interest if so to what relief in this respect are the defendants entitled opd 6. to what amount is the plaintiff entitled under the different accounts opp 7.where the credit facilities availed by and on behalf of bimla udyog and not on behalf of mis. bindal construction- (p) ltd. opd 8. relief.' learned counsel for the plaintiff, during the course of arguments, has raised the same contentions as have been referred to in this application! inasmuch as the defendants in their written statement in reply to paras 19 and 20 of the plaint have admitted the whole amount and that further balance confirmation dated 31-7-1981, wherein debts up to 30-6-1981 have been acknowledged by the defendants, has been admitted by the defendants, and on this basis there is a clear admission on behalf of the defendants. learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon m/s. p. roy company v. punjab national bank & another : 18(1980)dlt318 ,(l) particularly paras 29 and 33. (5) i have given carefully consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. however, i regret i am unable to accept the same. in reply to paras 19 and 20 of the plaint in the written statement i do not find any admission on the part of the defendants. it has only been stated in the reply that the defendants have every desire to return the correct amount to the plaintiff. but no where it has been stated that what is the correct amount which is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. furthermore, it has not been shown that the balance confirmation date 31-7-1981 has been admitted by the defendants. on the other hand, issue no. 2 has been framed by this court on 18th april, 1985 which is as under : '2.did the defendants sign blank documents or printed forms without filling in the blanks if so, what is its effect opd' the decision on this issue involves the adducing of evidence and if finding ultimately is found in favor of the defendants. it can entail the dismissal of the suit. thereforee, in these circumstances it cannot be said that there is an admission on the part of the defendants to return particular amount as shown in the balance confirmation. the case is already fixed for trial. the decision in the suit depends on the determination and finding on the issues after the production of evidence by the parties. all these issues involve,d questions of fact which cannot be disposed of on motion under order 12 rule 6 and without leading evidence in support of these facts. thereforee, at this stage, no decree can be passed on the basis of so-called admission as referred to by the plaintiff in this application. the case relied upon by the plaintiff is hardly of any assistance to her as that case was decided after the trial on having given finding on all the issues and this does not relate to the passing of a decree on admission. in state bank of lndia v m/s midland industries and others : air1988delhi153 mahesh chandra, j. of this court held : 'undoubtedly rule 6 of order 12 has been couched in a very wide language. however, before a court can act under r. 6, admission must be clear unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal furthermore a judgment on admission by the defendant under o.12, r. 6 is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the court, no doubt such discretion has to be judicially- exercised. if a case involves question's which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under this rule the court is free to refuse exercising discretion in favor of the party invoking it. where the defendants have raised objections which go to the very root of the case, it would not be proper to exercise this discretion and pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff. the rule is not intended to apply where there are serious questions of law to be asked and determined. likewise where specific issues have been raised in spite of admission on the part of the defendants the plaintiff would be hound to lead evidence on those issues and prove the same before he becomes entitled to decree and the plaintiff in that event cannot have a decree by virtue of provision of o.12, r, 6. civil procedure code without prosing those issues.' (6) in this case. as already stated, firstly there is no dear and unequivocal admission by the defendants and further the issues framed involve determination of question of facts which cannot be disposed of on motion under order 12 rule 6 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 and without leading evidence in support of the facts decision on certain issues in favor of the defendants can result into the dismissal of the suit against the plaintiff and in fact go to the root of the, case. in these circumstances. no decree can be paused under order 12 rule 6 of the code of civil procedure. 1908 as proved for by the plaintiff on the basis of so-called admission. the application is. thereforee, dismissed.