Judgment 1. This is an application for judgment upon admission in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 25,93,275.80p. and, accordingly, a decree may be passed and further the balance claim of the petitioner may be relegated to the suit. 2. The petitioner relied upon a revised schedule of payment forwarded by the respondent by a letter dated 28th May, 1998 by which the respondent sought extension of time to pay as per such revised schedule. 3. On July 1, 1998, the respondent executed a demand promissory note promising to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 26,85,575/-. On 31st July, 1998, the respondent clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously admitted that as on the date of the said letter, the balance sum outstanding by the respondent to the petitioner stood at Rs.21,51,800/- and delayed payment charges of Rs. 4,41,475.80p. became due and payable thereon, aggregating to a sum of Rs. 25,93,275.80p. which is according to the petitioner an admission on the part of the respondent to the extent of the said amount. 4. It further appears that on 31st July, 1998, the respondent forwarded two cheques both dated 31st July, 1998 towards payment of its admitted dues, being the amounts as aforesaid, by the respondent. The said cheques were dishonoured on presentation. 5. These facts have not been denied by the respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition. On the contrary, the respondent has merely attempted to allege that an understanding had been arrived at with the petitioner to the effect that payment of the said sum would be made upon receipt of funds from external sources in respect of the said cheques. 6. It is also alleged that the petitioner assured the respondent that the said cheques would not be encashed without confirmation of and reference to the respondents. The facts remains that the respondents have admitted the said amount aggregating to a sum of Rs. 25,93,275.80p. 7. The only point was taken by Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the respondent that admission must be a post-suit admission under Order 12 Rule 6. He further contended that there must be an admission in accordance with the said Order 12 Rule 6 that such admission must be in the pleadings or otherwise. According to him, no written statement has been filed. Therefore, no scope for passing a judgment upon admission on any pleading and there is no oral admission. He further contended that there must be an admission in accordance with the said Order 12 Rule 6 that such admission must be in the pleadings or otherwise. According to him, no written statement has been filed. Therefore, no scope for passing a judgment upon admission on any pleading and there is no oral admission. According to him, the admission must be to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. In support of his such contention, he relief upon the judgments reported in (1) 55 Law Times 42, Landergan v. Feast; (2) 23 CWN 1017, Koramall Ramballav v. Mongilal Dalimchand; (3) 27 CWN 783, J. C. Galsiaun v. E. D. Sassoon & Co. 8. In reply learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the decision reported in 55 Law Times 42 (supra). has no application. He further contended that in the judgment reported in 23 CWN 1017 (supra), the Court was of the opinion that the admission of the defendant was not an unconditional admission and in a case reported in 27 CWN 783 (supra), the Court was also of the opinion that the admission of the defendant was not a clear admission, but according to him, in the instant case, there can be no dispute whatsoever that the defendant unequivocally, unambiguously, admitted its liability to pay a sum of Rs. 25,93,275.80p. to the petitioner. 9. He also drew my attention to a passage of the Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in the matter of (4) Haribansa Misra & Ors. v. Banshidhar Mohanty reported in AIR 1978 NOC 290 (Orissa). It would be proper for me to reproduce the paragraph which has been relied upon by him, which is as follows : "There can be no justification in law for the position that even if a party admitted that the truth was one way, nearly because the pleading had not been raised to admit the admission into record, the admission should be kept away and even if it was unjust, on the technical rule of pleadings, and admission of the adversary should be omitted from consideration. The reason for not admitting a material not included in the pleading is on account of prejudice. When the admission of the adversary is asked• to be utilised, there is no scope for prejudice." 10. The reason for not admitting a material not included in the pleading is on account of prejudice. When the admission of the adversary is asked• to be utilised, there is no scope for prejudice." 10. After hearing the parties, it would be proper for me at this stage to reproduce the Rule 6 of Order 12 of the. Code, which is as follows : "Order 12 Rule 6. (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the Suit, either on the application of any party or of its motion and without for the. determination of any other question between the parties, make such order of give such judgment as it may " think fit having regard to such admissions. (2). Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up; in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced." 11. The object of the said Rule is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment in accordance with the admission on behalf of the defendant to that extent and the plaintiff is entitled and the Rule has been made wide enough to afford relief not only in cases of admission made in the pleadings but also upon verbal admissions. 12. It further appears that a judgment on admission by the defendant is not a matter of right, but a matter of discretion of this Court to be judicially exercised. In the instant case, the suit is also on negotiable instruments and the cheques were issued and it is also admitted that the same was dishonoured on presentation. 13. It is also a fact that the accounts were signed and admitted by the defendant and further the schedule of payment was also forwarded by them which gives no suspicion in the mind that the said amount is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 14. It is also a fact that in the affidavit-in opposition which has been filed by the defendant, in the proceedings there is no denial of the fact that the amount was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The execution of the negotiable instruments, were also admitted and not denied. 14. It is also a fact that in the affidavit-in opposition which has been filed by the defendant, in the proceedings there is no denial of the fact that the amount was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The execution of the negotiable instruments, were also admitted and not denied. All these steps of the defendants in my opinion, give no hesitation to hold that there is nothing but an admission on their part. Filing of the affidavit by them without denying the fact in the affidavit specifically in Paragraph 3 (d), 3 (e) and 3(g)-where the defendants have only stated that the payments of the said sum would be made upon receipt of funds from external sources, in my opinion, is nothing but admission in respect of the claim of the petitioner. The issuance of the cheques are also admitted in Paragraph 3 (c) of the opposition. 15. The cheques were issued as admitted by the defendant in their affidavit, which has been filed by the defendants in this application in my opinion, is nothing but case within the purview of Order 12 Rule 6 as an admission and, accordingly, there will be a judgment on admission in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 25,93,275.80p. and accordingly, a decree is directed to be drawn up on the basis of the judgment for the said sum against the defendant. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this application is thus disposed of. S.K.G.