D. P. Wadhwa ( 1 ) THIS first appeal by the defendant is directedagainst the judgment and decree of the Learned Single Judge (Dalveerbhandari, J) passed on the oasis of admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of thecode of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff (now respondent) filed a mortgage suit for recoveryof over Rs. 12. 89 lakhs against five defendants being the principle debtorand the guarantors. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues areframed: (1) Whether the plaint is signed, verified and the suit institutedby a duly authorised person ? (2) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action ? (3) Whether the defendants signed the documents in blank ? Ifso, its effect. (4) At what rate the plaintiff is entitled to charge the interest ? (5) To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to and fromwhom ? (6) Relief.- ( 3 ) THEN the plaintiff bank filed an application under Order 12 Rule6 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that in the balance-sheet of the firstdefendant (now appellant) this defendant admitted that a sum of Rs. 11,95,0857- was due from it to the plaintiff-bank. On the basis of this admission in the balance-sheet and after recording the relevant facts, the Learnedsingle Judge passed a decree for this amount with cost and then adjournedthe suit for subsequent date for further proceedings. ( 4 ) THE appellant says that the impugned judgment could not havebeen passed and in support of his argument, reliance has been placed ontwo decisions of Single Benches of this Court. These being State Bank ofindia v. Midland Industries and Others, AIR 1988 Delhi 153 and Canara Bankv. M/s. M. M. Polypacking (P) Ltd. 1922 (22) DRJ 130. In both the judgments it is mentioned that relief under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is discretionary one and has to be exercised. judicially on the facts and circumstances of each case and that Court is not bound to pass a decree. In thiscase the admission was clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. These two judgments did not lay any law that admission in a balance-sheetis not admission or that a judgment cannot be passed under Order 12 Rule6 of the Code on that basis. It was stated before us that serious issues wereinvolved in the case and the impugned judgment, therefore, could not havebeen passed. These two judgments did not lay any law that admission in a balance-sheetis not admission or that a judgment cannot be passed under Order 12 Rule6 of the Code on that basis. It was stated before us that serious issues wereinvolved in the case and the impugned judgment, therefore, could not havebeen passed. No serious issue of law arises and we are of the opinion thatthe Learned Single Judge rightly felt that there was admission on the partof the defendants and that he could, under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code,pass the impugned judgment and decree. ( 5 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Puri, learned Counsel for the appellant,that the balance-sheet was prepared for tax purposes for submission to theincome Tax authorities and could not be treated as any admission oa thepart of the defendant that any amount was due from it to the plaintiff. Wedisagree with this submission. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed