Judgment : In this application under O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff/applicant has prayed for passing an interim judgment and decree directing the defendants/ respondents to pay to him a sum of Rs.18,31,466.05 on the basis of the admission of the liability of the said amount in their letter and statement of accounts. 2. The plaintiff/applicant has filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,21,382.45 together with subsequent interest at 24% per annum and costs. The suit amount is payable by the defendants/ respondents for the supply of fabrics made by the plaintiff/ applicant on various dates. 3. According to the plaintiff, as stated in this application, the second defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff dated 10. 1997 along with enclosures containing the statement of accounts admitting the liability to the extent of Rs.18,31,466.05. Since the second defendant, who is the director of the third defendant and the Power of Attorney-holder of the first defendant, admitted the liability on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiff seeks for the interim judgment and decree in respect of the admitted liability amounting to Rs.18,31,466.05 through this application under O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But this application has been opposed by the defendants. 4. The whole reading of the letter dated 10. 1997 and the enclosures, namely the statement of accounts would not show that the liability for the said sum was admitted. On the other hand, it is the stand of the defendants through their written statement that the plaintiff has filed the suit by clubbing various amounts due from various entities by attempting to bring this matter within the original jurisdiction of this Court. It is also further contended in the written statement that the defendants disputed the liability of the said sum by pointing out the conflicting and contradictional statement made in the plaint and inconsistency in the statements filed by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, there was no admission made by them as to the liability of the amount, nor the letter dated 10. 1997 is an admission for the said amount and therefore, O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for passing an interim judgment and decree in respect of the claim, which is not at all admitted. 5. 1997 is an admission for the said amount and therefore, O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for passing an interim judgment and decree in respect of the claim, which is not at all admitted. 5. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant by citing the decision in Shikharchand v. Bari Bai , A.I.R. 1974 M.P. 75 would be stated that this Court would be well within its rights to base the interim judgment on the statement made by a party not only in the pleadings but also de hors the pleadings since O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure would make it clear that the word ‘otherwise’ incorporated in the sub-rule would clearly indicate that the court can ignore the pleading in the written statement and to take into consideration the admissions in other documents. 6. The main basis on which this application was filed is the letter dated 10. 1997. In this letter, it is stated as follows: “We confirm an outstanding of Rs.8,65,186.05 subject to confirmation of a difference of Rs.8,240.00 in your Invoice Nos.207 and 210.” In the statement of accounts it is mentioned that the total outstanding is Rs.18,31,426. According to the defendants, all that is stated in the letter dated 10. 1997 is that there is an outstanding of Rs.8,65,186.05 and in that letter there is a conflict as regards the amount outstanding. However, he has taken a specific stand in the written statement that the statement of accounts furnished to the plaintiff is erroneous and the records produced along with the plaint would indicate that the case as set out by the plaintiff is untrue. Thus, it is clear that the claim for the interim judgment and decree involves question of disputed payments. Moreover, the defendants also questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground of misjoinder of parties and the suit is barred by limitation. 7. It is true that O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the interim judgment at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party on or his own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other questions between the parties, when the issues of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise. But this does not mean that this Court shall ignore the entire written statement and refer to the document dated 10. 1997 document for passing the interim judgment. 8. It is specifically observed by the Apex Court in Dudh Nath v. Suresh Chandra , A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1509 that the alleged admission in a particular statement must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on a part of the admission ignoring the other. Under the circumstances, the request of the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/applicant to ignore the written statement cannot be accepted. 9. Undoubtedly, Rule 6 of O.12 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been couched in a very wide language. However, before a court can act under Rule 6, admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Further more, a judgment on admission by the defendant under O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a matter of right. It is purely a matter of discretion of the Court, no doubt such discretion has to be judicial exercised. In a case involving a question, which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under this rule, the court is free to refuse exercising discretion in favour 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 favour of the plaintiff. Even assuming that in some part there is some admission, where specific issues have been raised questioning the liability in respect of the alleged admission on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff shall be bound to lead evidence on those issued and prove the same before he becomes entitled to a decree. In such an event, the plaintiff cannot have a decree by virtue of the provision under O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure without proving those issues. 10. In this case, as already stated, there are no clear and unequivocal admission by the defendants in the letter dated 10. 1997. However, the questions raised in the written statements not only involve determination of question of facts, but also would go to the very root of the case. 11. Further more, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 112. 1998. The written statement has been filed on 23. 1997. However, the questions raised in the written statements not only involve determination of question of facts, but also would go to the very root of the case. 11. Further more, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 112. 1998. The written statement has been filed on 23. 1999. It is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this application has been filed only on 22. 2000 belatedly. 12. Taking into consideration the above factors, I am of the view that the interim decree as prayed for under O.12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be granted on the basis of the so called admission in the letter dated 10. 1997 and the application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is seen in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in the application that the plaintiff earlier filed an application in A.No.4452 of 1998 for a direction to the defendants to furnish security in the said claim and the same has been issued by this Court on 2. 1999. But however, the defendants have not furnished the security, as directed by this Court. If it is so, it is open to the plaintiff/applicant to pursue the relief sought for in the said application by taking appropriate steps. 13. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this present application is dismissed.