Judgment : 1. The application has been filed for passing of judgment and decree in terms of the first respondent's letter of undertaking dated 20.3.2001 on the following allegations: The suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.28,50,000 being the principal and interest payble by the respondents/defendents. In the suit, the applicant filed an application for attachment of the immovable properties of the respondents bearing Door No.22, Nageswara St Nungambakkam, Chennai, and also for attachment of movables in the hospital belonging to the respondents. Viz M/s Kay Pee Kay Medical Services Pvt Ltd. running a hospital in the name of M/s Chennai Kaliappa Hospital at Raja Annamalaipuram. Originally notice was ordered to the respondents and after service of notice, when the respondents failed to furnish security, by order dated 13.3.2001, this Court directed attachment of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the application. The Bailiffs of Nazir Section, High Court Court, attached the immovable properties at No. 22 Nageswara Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai. When the Bailiffs went to Chennai Kaliappa Hospital to effect attachment of the movables, the first respondent gave a letter of undertaking to the effect that he would pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 at the first instance and clear balance plaint amount within a period of two month therefrom. He gave Rs.l,00,000 by cash, gave 14 cheques for Rs.1,00,000 each with specific dates on them. On such payment and execution of letter of undertaking voluntarily, the first respondent requested the applicant and the applicant in his turn requested the bailiffs to keep the warrant in abeyance for a period of three weeks from 20.3.2001 in order to enable him to realise the cheques. Accordingly, the applicant gave a letter to the bailiffs. The bailiffs left the hospital and also submitted a report to this Court. Two days after this, the first respondent filed two applications before this Court seeking to raise the attachment and stay of the order of attachment in Application Nos.1316 and 1319 of 2001 and on 27.3.2001 this Court dismissed the applications as infructuous. Though the application in A.No.390 of 2000 for attachment before judgment was not listed, in view of the order passed by this Court in the other two applications, it should be construed that the application in A.No.390 of 2000 was also dismissed. Though the application in A.No.390 of 2000 for attachment before judgment was not listed, in view of the order passed by this Court in the other two applications, it should be construed that the application in A.No.390 of 2000 was also dismissed. Another application in A.No.2046 of 2001 filed by the applicant once again for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 was dismissed by this Court on 13.6.2001. The first respondent on his own free will and volition executed the letter of undertaking and made part payment in cash and thereby made the applicant believe that he was honest in settling the suit claim. He pleaded with the applicant to avoid attachment and promised that the cheques would be cleared as and when presented for realisation. More over, the applicant being a doctor was not interested in disturbing the tranquility of the hospital and therefore, accepted the letter of undertaking together with 14 post-dated cheques and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in cash. The first respondent also convinced the applicant that he would settle the suit claim within two months from the date of undertaking. The first respondent while executing the After the 14 cheques given by the first respondent, the applicant presented "two cheques dated 22.3.2001 and 24.3.2001 for realisation to their banker. They well-realised. The first respondent, however, instructed the banker not to honour the other cheques. The remaining 12 cheques presented by the applicant as and when they were due, were returned as per the instructions of the first respondent. The applicant was therefore constrained to take proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and they are pending before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet. The letter of undertaking has been acted upon as two cheques were encashed. There was no reason for the first respondent to instruct his banker not to honour the other cheques. The dismissal of his applications Nos.1316 and 1319 of 2001 would not entitle him to issue such instructions. The letter of undertaking and cheques given by the first respondent are binding on him. He cannot wriggle out of his admission. The applicant is entitled to a decree under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A counter has been filed by the first respondent. The letter of undertaking and cheques given by the first respondent are binding on him. He cannot wriggle out of his admission. The applicant is entitled to a decree under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A counter has been filed by the first respondent. It is stated in the counter as follows: The first respondent has already filed a written statement denying any liability. It is therefore not correct for the applicant to say that he is due either in a sum of Rs.28,50,000 or any sum. As the first respondent went abroad, he could not attend the Court and the Court ordered an ex parte attachment. The plaintiff accompanied the bailiff to attach the machinery, computers and surgical equipments in the hospital. As a very critical surgery was undertaken by the first respondent at the time when the bailiff appeared, in the interest of the patient on whom he was conducting surgery and in order to avoid the bailiff, he gave the cheques, though he was himself not liable to pay any amount to the applicant. He also gave security of his immovable property and the attachment petition was closed. The applicant filed another application for attachment before judgment and this was dismissed on merits. The first respondent had not executed the letter of undertaking on his own free will and volition. Only on the threat of attachment of the essential movables in the hospital, he executed the letter of undertaking. In the same circumstances, he also gave the cheques. In any event, these are matters for evidence and this respondent is entitled to explain the circumstances as and when the suit is taken up for trial. If the applicant has instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the first respondent will defend the said proceedings. The letter of undertaking is not an admission made voluntarily. Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for this purpose. At the most, the applicant will give notice of any admission and she may call upon the first respondent to admit certain documents. But, she cannot compel him to submit to a decree. All averments made in para 7 of the affidavit are denied. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure empowering the Court to pass a decree. The application has to be dismissed. 3. But, she cannot compel him to submit to a decree. All averments made in para 7 of the affidavit are denied. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure empowering the Court to pass a decree. The application has to be dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the first respondent had voluntarily given the letter of undertaking as also the cheques. Only on the basis of the undertaking given by him and also the cheques issued, the applicant gave a letter to the bailiffs not to pursue the attachment operations. Having admitted the liability undertaken to settle the claim and also having parted with cheques, two of which were also honoured, the first respondent could not resist the present application for passing a decree in terms to Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Council relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions: (1) Sundaram Finance Services Ltd. Etc. v. Shoba Garments (P) Ltd. 2001 (2)CTC153and (2)Dr.S.K. Doraisamy v. N. Elangovan and three others, 2001 (3) CTC 539 . According to the learned Counsel, Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is clear that when there is admission of liability, a judgment and a decree should follow. 4. Mr.S.A. Rajan, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted as follows: If an admission is made by the defendants in the written statement or any document and the admission is not disputed by the defendants, only then the plaintiff can ask for a decree to the extent to which an admission is made and the plaintiff can invoke Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the written statement is filed under Order 12, Rule 6, a notice in Form 9 (Appendix C) to admit documents has to be served on the defendant. No such notice was given in this case. After such notice is given, the defendant can specifically or by necessary implication, deny or admit the existence of the liability. If the defendant admits the fact on document, he can admit it in Form 11 to Appendix C. If the defendant neglects or refuses to admit or if he admits the liability in Form 11 Appendix C, the Court can proceed to make such an order to give judgment as it may think fit under Order 12, Rule 6. 5. If the defendant admits the fact on document, he can admit it in Form 11 to Appendix C. If the defendant neglects or refuses to admit or if he admits the liability in Form 11 Appendix C, the Court can proceed to make such an order to give judgment as it may think fit under Order 12, Rule 6. 5. In the instant case, the defendants have explained the circumstances in which Mr. Salim, the husband of the plaintiff came into possession of certain blank cheque leaves, blank stamp papers and letter heads signed by them. He was the Manager of the hospital where he was termed as the Executive Director. He wanted to participate in the management of the hospital. His conduct was not acceptable to the defendants. He was quarrelsome, with the result his services were terminated. At the time of leaving the hospital, he had taken away certain blank cheque leaves, stamp papers and letter had signed by the defendants, which were entrusted to him in the course of the administration of the hospital. He conveniently filled them in order to use them in the suit. The defendants have never seen the plaintiff. This is stated in the counter filed by the defendants in the application for attachment, even though the written statement is not yet filed. The defendants having denied their liability and also explained the circumstances in which the letters and cheques were with the plaintiff, that would be no admission to enable the plaintiff to invoke Order 12, Rule 6. The learned Counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions: (1) M. Manoharan Chetti and others v. C. Coomaraswamy Naidu and Sons, AIR 1980 Mad. 212 ; (2) Balaksishna Agarwal and another v. Central Bank Of India and another, AIR 1984 M & P 74 and ; (3) Union Of India v. M/s Feroze and Co, AIR 1962 J & K 66. 6. Onthe pleadings and the arguments, the following points arise for determination: (1) Whether there is an admission on satisfying the requirements of Order 12, Rule 6? (2) If so, whether a judgment and decree have to be passed in terms of the said admission? 7. 6. Onthe pleadings and the arguments, the following points arise for determination: (1) Whether there is an admission on satisfying the requirements of Order 12, Rule 6? (2) If so, whether a judgment and decree have to be passed in terms of the said admission? 7. Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the amendment ran as follows: "Judgment on admissions: - Any person may, at any stage of a suit, where admission of fact have been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the. parties, and the Court may upon such application make such order or give such judgment as the Court may think just." 8. This Court had its own amendment made under R.O.C.No.1729 of 1926 and it was, to the following effect: "Renumber the existing Rule 6 of Order 12 as sub rule 6(1) and insert the following as sub rule (2) and (3). (2) The Court may also of its own motion make such order or give such judgment as it may consider just, having due regard to the admissions made by the parties. (3) Whenever an order or judgment is pronounced under the provisions of this rule, a decree may be drawn up in accordance with such order or judgment and bearing the same date as the day on which the order or judgment was pronounced." 9. The whole of sub rule was redrafted with significant changes. A new sub rule (2) has been added. The present provision is as follows: "Judgment on Admissions: 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 any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admissions. (2) When 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." 10. Under the present rule, even oral admissions are covered though such admissions have to be received with caution. (2) When 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." 10. Under the present rule, even oral admissions are covered though such admissions have to be received with caution. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 that the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be read along with Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure with particular reference to the proviso. Proviso to Order 8 Rule 5 runs as follows: "Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission." The analogous provision is Section 58 of the Evidence Act. Thus, even if there is an admission of the claim, the Court need not grant a decree. Again, if a case involves questions, which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion, under this Rule, the Court should in the exercise of its discretion refuse relief. Again, admission should be of fact and not of law. 11. It must be clear and unconditional as has been laid down by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Union Of India v. M/s Feroze & Co, AIR 1962 J & K 66 relied on by Mr.S.A. Rajan, learned Counsel for the respondents. In that case A filed a suit to recover Rs. 5 lakhs from B. The suit amount included security deposits of Rs.l,70,000 lying with B on account of various contracts entered into between the parties. B in his written statement admitted that A was entitled to receive those security deposits but subject to the condition that A executed a no-demand certificate as required by the clause in the agreement between them. A contended that the purpose of the condition was to compel A to negotiate with B privately out of Court and thus to restrict him from enforcing his rights by the usual legal proceedings and that such a condition was void under Section 28 of the Contract Act. A contended that the purpose of the condition was to compel A to negotiate with B privately out of Court and thus to restrict him from enforcing his rights by the usual legal proceedings and that such a condition was void under Section 28 of the Contract Act. It was held by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that, "the clause in the agreement merely laid down the procedure to be gone through in claiming the return of the security deposits. It did not preclude A from seeking a remedy in respect of these deposits by the usual legal proceedings. The clause war, merely an additional formality introduced by the express agreement of the parties and was a reasonable one as it related to the return of security deposits after a final settlement of accounts which was the essential purpose of obtaining such a deposit. A sought to avail himself of the admission of liability by B ignoring the condition which was an essential part of the admission itself. This he could not do. The admission by B was not an unconditional, unambiguous and clear admission on which part of A's claim could be decreed under Order 12, Rule 6 without disposing of the other issues which arose out of the pleadings of the parties." 12. It is also to be noted that there can be a judgment on admission de hors the pleading and such admission can be express or constructive. It is also clear from the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as they stand now that no application is necessary. The Court can do it on its own motion. I do not agree with the submissions made by Mr.S.A. Rajan that the formalities contemplated under the earlier provisions of Order 12, are required to be followed to invoke Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mr. Rajan, the so called admission by the first respondent is not unconditional. 13. In M.Manoharan Chetti and others v. M/s C.Coomaraswamy Naidu and sons, AIR 1980 Mad.212 relied on by Mr. Rajan, it has been held that, "the law by no means regards admission as conclusive proof of the matters admitted. According to Mr. Rajan, the so called admission by the first respondent is not unconditional. 13. In M.Manoharan Chetti and others v. M/s C.Coomaraswamy Naidu and sons, AIR 1980 Mad.212 relied on by Mr. Rajan, it has been held that, "the law by no means regards admission as conclusive proof of the matters admitted. This is because to a Court of law admissions are but statements, which do no more than suggest an inference as to some fact or facts in issue. It is, therefore, important that the Court should examine any given admission inside out to see if it suggests any clear inference on the fact in issue against the party making it. For a Court to draw an adverse inference against a party on the basic of what he is stated to have admitted, the admission must be unequivocal. It must also be comprehensive. It must go the whole-hog on the pointed issue. If a party's admission falls short of the totality of the requisite evidence needed for legal proof of a fact in issue, such an admission would be only a truncated admission. It cannot support a valid judicial determination, unless it be that the Court is in a position to find other evidence before it to make up for the deficiencies in the admission." There is no quarrel over the proposition of law made in the said decision. 14. Inthe third decision relied on by Mr. Rajan Balkrishna Agarwal and another v. Central Bank of India and another, AIR 1984 M & P 74 the question arose in the following manner: "The plaintiff Bank advanced loan to the defendants. Subsequently to recover the amount of loan the Bank applied for issuance of direction under Order 39, Rule 10 to hand over articles hypothecated to it, alleging that the defendant, by signing documents of hypothecation bond hypothecated the said articles. The alleged agreement of hypothecation of articles in favour of the Bank was specifically denied by the defendants and the signatures on the bond were alleged to have acquired by fraud." It was held that, "in the absence of admission of fact of hypothecation of articles by the defendant, it would not be competent for the Court to issue such a direction. Mere allegation is not sufficient." The defendant in that case, while admitting the signature upon that document pleaded that the document was obtained by fraud and signatures were obtained on blank forms, without communicating to him the import of that document. The Court held that, "such an admission would be insufficient to warrant a direction under Rule 10 of Order 39, C.P.C." 15. It has been held in Shikharchand v. Bari Bai, AIR 1974 MP 75 that, the word "otherwise" in Order 12 Rule 6 clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to base the judgment on statements made by a party not only in the pleadings, but also de hors the pleadings." Such admissions, as already noted, can be made either expressly or constructively. 16. We will have to examine whether there has been any admission and whether such an admission is clear, unconditional and unequivocal. Before actually referring to the various events, let us refer to two of the decisions relied or by the learned Counsel Mr. Ramesh for the applicant. 17. In Sundaram Finance Services Ltd. v. Shoba Garments (P) Ltd. 2001 (2) CTC 153 an application for interim decree on admission was made. The defendants in the suit sought for bill discounting facility with the plaintiff. It committed default in paying amounts due under bill discounting facility. The money due on the bills - discounted. It relied on letters written by the first defendant admitting liability and seeking time for payment. The plaintiff also filed other letters containing similar admissions. It was held by Rammurthi J. that, "admission of facts by defendants in such letters was clear that it was impossible for the defendants to succeed on the basis of such admission." The learned Judge granted interim decree. 18. In Dr.S-K. Doraisamy v. N.Elangovan and three others 2001 (3) CTC 539 it has been, held that. "A Court can during pendency of suit render judgment on admission made in pleading without determining any other question between the parties and that provision under Order 12, Rule 6 had been made to enable either party at any stage of suit to obtain judgment on motion by him or by Court acting suo motu on admission made by other party. As long as such admissions are clear, unambiguous and unconditional and unequivocal, the Court can decree the suit for the amount admitted in the written statement." 19. As long as such admissions are clear, unambiguous and unconditional and unequivocal, the Court can decree the suit for the amount admitted in the written statement." 19. InUttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India and others, 2000(7) SCC 120 : AIR 2000 SC 2740 : 2000 (5) Scale 440 it was contended that admissions referred to in Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. should be of the same nature as other admissions referred to in other rule, preceding this Rule. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "Admissions generally arise when a statement is made by a party in any of the modes provided under Sections 18 to 23 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Admissions are of many kinds; they may be considered as being on the record as actual if they are either in the pleadings or in answer to interrogatories or implied from the pleadings by non-traversa1. Secondly, as between parties by agreement or notice." After observing that, the Supreme Court considered it unnecessary to examine as to what kinds of admissions are covered by Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. Sections 18 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act and also Section 58 deal with admissions. The relevant provisions for our purpose in the Evidence Act are Sections 18, 21, 23 and 58 and they run as follows: "Section 18: Admission by party to proceeding or his agent; by suitor in representative character; by party interested in subject-matter; by person from whom interest derived. Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court, regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to make them, are admissions. Statement made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character. Statements made by (1) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or (2) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements. Note : "It is well Settled that any admission made in ignorance of legal rights or under duress cannot bind the maker of the admission. Shri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 . Section 21: Proof of admission against persons Baking then, and by or on their behalf: - Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative-in-interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative-in-interest, except in the following cases: (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32. (2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable. (3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. Section 23: - Admissions in civil cases when relevant. -In civil court no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given. Section 58: Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by the rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions." 21. The sequence of events in the present proceedings is as follows: The applicant filed application No.390/2000 for attachment before judgment. The sequence of events in the present proceedings is as follows: The applicant filed application No.390/2000 for attachment before judgment. The respondents were directed to furnish security to the suit claim, failing which there was to be an order of attachment of the property at No.22, Nageswara Rao Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai, and the movable properties, machinery, equipments of M/s Kay Pee Kay Medical Services running an hospital in the name of Chennai Kaliappa Hospitals at No.43, Second Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028. On 7.3.2000 notice was ordered. After steps were taken, Counsel entered appearance for the respondents and the application was directed to be posted before Court on 28.11.2000. On 13.3.2001 the application was ordered. Thereafter, the bailiff went to the premises of the respondents with the order of attachment. The first respondent gave an undertaking and also paid a sum of Rs.l,00,000 in cash. The applicant accepted the undertaking and obtained 14 post-dated cheques bearing various dates. According to the applicant, the first respondent promised that the undertaking would be honoured. Acting on that representation and also the letter of undertaking and the cash of Rs.1,00,000 given and also the post-dated cheques, the applicant instructed the bailiffs to keep the order of attachment in abeyance. 22. The letter of undertaking is to the following effect: LETTER OF UNDERTAKING This letter of undertaking executed by Dr.K. Pathmanaban S/o Late Kaliappa Pillai. Managing Director, Chennai Kaliappa Hospital having office at No,52, II Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028. On a suit filed by Mrs.W.S. Nisha, the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai, passed an order of attachment in application No.390/2000 dated 13th March, 2001 and the bailiffs representing the High Court to execute the warrant of attachment served a copy of the warrant on me. I hereby undertake to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one ,lakh only) in cash today and I shall pay the balance of Rs. 14,00,000 as detailed below: S.No. Cheque No. Date Amount 1 035831 27.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 2 035832 28.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 3 035834 29.32001 Rs. 1,00,000 4 035835 30.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 5 035836 2.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 6 035837 3.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 7 035838 4.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 8 035839 5.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 9 035840 6.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 10 035841 9.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 11 .035842 10.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 12 035843 11.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 13 035844 22.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 14 035845 24.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 3 035834 29.32001 Rs. 1,00,000 4 035835 30.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 5 035836 2.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 6 035837 3.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 7 035838 4.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 8 035839 5.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 9 035840 6.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 10 035841 9.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 11 .035842 10.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 12 035843 11.4.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 13 035844 22.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 14 035845 24.3.2001 Rs. 1,00,000 If the cheques are not honoured as per the above schedule, the warrant of attachment may be executed. I request the Bailiffs to keep the warrant of attachment in abeyance for a period of three weeks in view of the payments referred to above. I shall pay the balance plaint amount within a period of two months ." 23. It is clearly stated that if the cheques are not honoured as per the above schedule, the warrant of attachment might be executed. There is a further undertaking that the first respondent would pay the balance plaint amount within a period of two months. We may recollect here that in the affidavit in support of the present application, a definite allegation is made. It is to the following effect: "The first respondent while executing the letter of undertaking consulted his Counsel over his cellular phone and after making me to wait for two hours, executed the letter of undertaking. It is well thought out and a voluntary document after proper counselling. The letter of undertaking binding on the first respondent." In the counter filed to the said affidavit, the said allegations are not specifically denied. Only the averments made in para 7 of the affidavit regarding the enforceability of the document have been denied. It would therefore appear, that the first respondent had voluntarily,unconditionally and unequivocally given the undertaking committing himself to the terms contained therein. He had taken legal advice and executed the document making the applicant and the Court Officers wait for two hours. Not only that, two of the cheques issued by him were also allowed to be encashed. Only after two or three days, it dawned on him to challenge the letter of undertaking by raising contentions, which were very much available to him earlier, if they were true. Not only that, two of the cheques issued by him were also allowed to be encashed. Only after two or three days, it dawned on him to challenge the letter of undertaking by raising contentions, which were very much available to him earlier, if they were true. After he instructed his bankers not to honour the cheques, he also took out two applications in A.Nos.1316 and 1319 of 2001, both of which came to be dismissed by my predecessor in the following terms: "While the bailiff went to the premises of the respondent with the order of attachment, the Managing Director of the defendant has given an undertaking and also paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in cash and the plaintiff also accepted the undertaking and obtained 14 post-dated cheques containing various dates, thereby the matter has been settled between the parties in view of the said undertaking. Therefore, the order of attachment does not survive in view of the fact that the parties themselves amicably settled the matter and arrived at a compromise as per the terms of the undertaking. Therefore, the applicant in A.No.1319 of 2001 has to be closed and accordingly it is closed. Therefore, A.No.1316 of 2001 for raising the order of attachment has become infructuous. Similarly, interim application has also become infructuous and dismissed as infructuous." 24. Thereafter, the applicant took out application in A.No.2046 of 2001 for a fresh order of attachment. This came to be dismissed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge extracted the report of the bailiff in the order, which is as follows: "In pursuance of the warrant for attachment of the movables (hereto annexed) on 20th day of March, 2001, We.Y. Gnanadhas, Head Bailiff and K.T. Jose, Junior Bailiff of this Court accompanied by Mr. Saleem, plaintiff’s husband went to execute the warrant for-attachment of the movables which is described in the schedule to warrant. At that time, the plaintiff W.S. Nisha gave a letter stating that she has received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) as cash and she has also received 14 post-dated cheques (each Rs. 1,00,000) towards the decree amount and she has further requested us, not to execute the warrant since she has received part of decree amount with her satisfaction." The learned Judge observed that this amounts to a compromise of the matter between the plaintiff and the defendants herein. 1,00,000) towards the decree amount and she has further requested us, not to execute the warrant since she has received part of decree amount with her satisfaction." The learned Judge observed that this amounts to a compromise of the matter between the plaintiff and the defendants herein. The learned Judge further observed while dismissing application as follows: "The present application is filed for the reason that only two cheques were honoured and subsequent post-dated cheques; were dishonoured and therefore, this fresh application is filed for the same relief of attachment before judgment. Petitioner's Counsel argues that there is no bar for filing a fresh application for attachment before judgment. This argument is not acceptable. Having filed the application the attachment before judgment and having got an order in his favour and while executing the warrant, the matter has been compromised between the parties and also that compromise has not been performed, the applicant/plaintiff cannot now file another application for the same relief of an order of attachment before judgment. Hence, this application is dismissed." 25. The letter of undertaking by the first respondent has been accepted by this Court to be an unconditional undertaking by the first respondent as regards the suit claim. His applications for raising the attachment and also for stay of the order of attachment were dismissed and the application for attachment came to be closed. The fresh application filed by the applicant for attachment once again also came to be dismissed as in the view of the learned Judge, the parties had compromised the matter and the first respondent had given the letter of undertaking as also cash and cheques. In the above circumstances, the first respondent cannot wriggle out of the undertaking admitting liability parting with cash and cheques with a further assurance that the balance of the plaint claim would be settled within two months thereafter. 26. In my view, Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure has got to be invoked. When the liability is admitted otherwise than in the pleadings, the Court has ample powers to pace a judgment and decree in terms of the admission. The application is ordered. There will be a decree for the suit claim for Rs.28,50,000 with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation with proportionate costs.