S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal wises out of a suit, filed by the plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs and odd. In that suit, before the service of summons, an application was made by the plaintiff for a judgment on admission. Such application, which was purportedly under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was contested by the appellant and another defendant by filing affidavits-in-opposition. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 21st December, 1993, decreed the suit partly, on admission, for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs. ( 2 ) FROM the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Trial Judge, in granting the prayer of the plaintiff for a decree on admission, relied upon Annexures 'b' to 'j' and Annexure 'm' to the plaintiff's application. On careful reading of the said judgment of the learned Trial Judge, such a decree on admission appears to have been based on the following reasons and findings : (i)the supplementary agreement (Annexure 'm' to the application) dated 18th June, 1982 contained defendant / appellants' admission about their liability to pay the amount decreed, which was admitted also in the affidavit- in-opposition of the defendant. The said supplementary agreement was not challenged as fabricated document. (ii)secondly, the defence, which the defendants/appellants pleaded about payment, of that Rs. 40 1akhs, of a sum of Rs. 16,25,117/by his wife, without his knowledge, was unbelievable and could not be considered for the purpose of reduction of the amount of Rs. 40 lakhs by way of adjustment as mentioned in the supplementary agreement (Annexure 'm' ). (iii)the documents (Annexures 'b' to 'j' to the application), though alleged to be fabricated and forged by the defendant and not relied upon by the plaintiff, did not require any examination by hand-writings expert, as the signatures therein appeared to be those of the defendant No. 1. (iv)the transactions of shares as referred to in the Memorandum of Settlement, dated 20th June, 1992, constituted completely separate transactions as distinct from the loan transaction, which was the subject matter of the present suit. (v)the plaintiff, on the basis of the Deeds of Assignment, which were Annexures 'l' collectively to the said application, became entitled to the amount due to the assignors. (v)the plaintiff, on the basis of the Deeds of Assignment, which were Annexures 'l' collectively to the said application, became entitled to the amount due to the assignors. (vi)the application for examination for documents (Annexures 'b' to 'j' to the application) by an expert was a dilatory tactic. ( 3 ) BEFORE us elaborate submissions had been made by the learned Counsel, representing the contesting parties; on questions of law and fact, as embodied in the petition and affidavits in support and justification of the prayer and objection, respectively, of their clients. A number of decisions had also been cited by both the sides and we propose to refer to the principles laid down therein, which in our view would be relevant and necessary for deciding the question involved in the appeal. It is necessary to mention that submissions of the Counsel for the defendants/appellants included the points made out by him, by reference to the materials before the Court, that there was no necessity or occasion for making a firm and unequivocal admission in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of defences taken rendered the case of admission absurd. The sub - missions of the Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, included references to materials in justification that the facts and circumstances were such that the alleged admission was not only clear, unequivocal and unambiguous but most probable and natural. ( 4 ) WE have given our most anxious and serious consideration to the aforesaid rival submissions, particularly, because of the consequential impact of a judgment or decree on admission. This is incontrovertible that, in the present case the decree on admission had been granted on the basis of the application, made by the plaintiff-respondent, under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which contained as annexures, allegedly the documents, which were claimed to have been annexed to the plaint and on which the alleged admission was founded. There cannot also be any controversy that in connection with the documents, which were annexed, and the facts on which reliance had been placed, the provisions of Rules 2 to 5 of Order 12 had not been complied with-such provisions consequentially had not been attracted. None of the originals of these documents was produced before the Court nor marked as Exhibit. None of the originals of these documents was produced before the Court nor marked as Exhibit. The admission, therefore, in the context of the said state of records, must be taken to be one, which falls within the alternative fold of "otherwise" under Rule 6 of Order 12. We say so because 'pleadings' in Order VI means plaint or written statement and in the instant case, admittedly, due to non-service of any summons, no written statement was filed at the relevant time. ( 5 ) A careful reading of different paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1, particularly paragraphs 6, 7, 10 (d), 13, 14 to 18, 21 and 22, would show that the defence of the defendants/appellants was, firstly, that the Court had no jurisdiction. Secondly, the documents (Annexures 'b' to 'j' to the plaintiffs application) were all false and fabricated and got up documents and originals thereof required production for being examined by hand-writing expert; thirdly, nothing wan due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, after adjustment of the payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff, from time to time, and the plaintiff was liable to render accounts ; fourthly, the alleged assignments in favour of the plaintiff were invalid and inoperative in law due to noncompliance, with the statutory requirements, and, as such, could not confer any entitlement on the plaintiff to maintain the suit on the basis thereof ; lastly, regarding the supplementary agreement, on which the learned Judge appeared to have placed great reliance, it was attempted to be emphasized, on behalf of the defendants, that the said agreement, along with the alleged admission contained the word "approximately", which was used merely to indicate that subject to accounting of the liability of the defendants, the amount payable to the plaintiff could be determined. ( 6 ) REGARDING judgment or decree or order on admission in terms of ,order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure the legal position is fairly well settled and from the judicial decisions certain principles can be deciphered and, in fact, do emerge, which guide the exercise of discretion of Court in passing a decree or judgment on admission. In the first place, the Court has a discretion to allow sprayer but such a relief cannot be claimed by the plaintiff as of right. In the first place, the Court has a discretion to allow sprayer but such a relief cannot be claimed by the plaintiff as of right. In exercising the discretion the Court has to satisfy it's judicial conscience alike other instances of exercise of such discretion by the Court. Secondly, the admission must be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and unambiguous so that there may not be necessity for the Court to wait till determination of other questions. In view of such admission the defendant will have no right of defence at all and there must not be, any possibility of success of the defendant in the suit. Thirdly, the admission must be taken as a whole unless the part of the claim which the Court proposes to allow on admission is severable from other parts of the plaintiffs claim. ( 7 ) THE above noted principles have been propounded in the cases of Premsuk Das Asaram v. Udairam Gungabux reported in AIR 1918, Calcutta 467, J. C. Galstaun v. E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1924, Calcutta 190, Chikkam Koteswara Rao v. Chikkarn Subbarao and Ors. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1542 and Dudh Nath Panday v. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1509 ( 8 ) IN the instant case there cannot be any controversy that the authenticity and genuineness of Annexures 'b' to 'j' had been categorically denied by the defendants and in the impugned Judgement the learned Judge himself has taken note of such a position. It is also undeniable that in a trial under such a situation, originals of all such documents were required to be produced according to the law of evidence. The learned Judge, no doubt, compared the signatures as an expert, but in the present case, the assumption of that jurisdiction by the learned Judge cannot be sustained because the above noted requirements were not fulfilled. The nature of defence, already summarised by us, clearly indicate that there were triable issues and it would be too early a stage to say that the defendants, is no circumstances, would be able to succeed. The nature of defence, already summarised by us, clearly indicate that there were triable issues and it would be too early a stage to say that the defendants, is no circumstances, would be able to succeed. Thirdly, the admission itself, as embodied in the supplementary affidavit, which is Annexure 'm' to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the plaintiff, having itself included the word 'approximately'-a term, which was different from and contrary to 'exactly' --cannot be said to be unambiguous, unconditional or unequivocal, which according to the established legal position, was necessary for enabling the Court to pronounce a judgment on admission. In this connection, we would like to refer to a decision on which emphasis had been placed on behalf of the respondent, namely, the case of Premsuk Das Assaram v. Udairam Gungabux (supra) where the amount, on which a decree on admission had ultimately been passed, also was accompanied by a word "thereabout". The said case is distinguishable as it was noticed in the very same judgment, while the matter was before the Appeal Court, by Mookherjee, J. that before the learned Tiral Judge, in answer to question put by the Court to the Counsel for the defendant, the defendant admitted in affirmative his liability about the said sum. In this case, as we have already indicated, at the relevant time, even the summons had not been served. Assuming that the alleged admission could otherwise have been acted upon, the affidavit-in- opposition of the defendant contained statements and circumstances under which such admission, if at all, had been made and also attempts were made in the said affidavit-in-opposition to explain away the rigours of the alleged admission. This defence whether probable or improbable had not been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Judge. The reasons given by him, in our view, squarely is contrary to the established legal norms, as recorded hereinabove on fulfilment of which alone a decree or judgment on admission could be passed. It is, no doubt, true that after the trial the defence set up by the defendants may be found not acceptable to Court or may be found deserving rejection, but, at this stage, it cannot certainly be said with conviction that the defence is moon shine or sham. It is, no doubt, true that after the trial the defence set up by the defendants may be found not acceptable to Court or may be found deserving rejection, but, at this stage, it cannot certainly be said with conviction that the defence is moon shine or sham. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, we are of the view that it was not proper on the part of the learned Trial Judge, by embarking upon detailed investigation into puts of materials, to divest the defendants of their valuable right of contesting the plaintiff's claim. As such, we are not inclined to uphold the judgment and decree or other challenged in the appeal. ( 10 ) THE appeal, is accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment, decree and order are set aside. The learned Trial Judge is directed to proceed with the suit according to haw. ( 11 ) THE cost in the appeal will abide by the results of the suit. A prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order/judgment has been made and the same is refused. ( 12 ) THE effective of this order will be confined to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil procedure, alone and will not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to any other application including the application for examination of the documents by hand-writing experts. If certified copy of the judgment and order is applied for by the parties the Department is directed to deliver the same within two weeks from the date of deposit of the requisite stamps and folios. The Department and all parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment and order on the usual undertakings. B. M. Mitra, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.