JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, J. The defendants, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (C.M.C.) is the appellant before us. The C.M.C. in this appeal has challenged the judgment passed by a learned Judge of this Court in the instant suit, (for a decree of Rs. 1,56,46,560/- and for other reliefs) decreeing a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents on a petition filed by the plaintiff/respondents for judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiff/respondents there has been a clear and unambiguous admission made in the suit filed earlier (now pending) by the defendant/ appellant against the plaintiff/respondents. Relying on such admission, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents of the instant suit for a judgment on admission to the tune of Rs. 31,55,740/-. Be it mentioned herein, the C.M.C. in their Affidavit-in-Opposition also admitted in the same matter as has been admitted by them in their plaint. As noted hereinabove, the instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondents against the C.M.C. claiming a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,56,46,560/-, and other reliefs. At this stage we may also record that an earlier suit has been filed by the C.M.C. against the plaintiffs/respondents for a declaration that the plaintiffs/respondents are only entitled to a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- in respect of Audco make Butterfly Valves supplied to them by the plaintiffs/respondents during the year 1997-98 and for other reliefs. As noted hereinabove, an affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the C.M.C. in which they in a similar manner had alleged the same facts and/or admissions as alleged in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 in the plaint of the suit of the C.M.C. The Trial Court on consideration of the pleadings made in the suit filed by the C.M.C. and also the statements made by the C.M.C. in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by them to the application for judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed a judgment upon admission for a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/-. 31,55,740/-. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us at the instance of the C.M.C. which was heard in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and is being disposed of by this judgment. 2. On behalf of the C.M.C., Mr. Mitra, the learned senior Counsel at the first instance contended that the learned Trial Judge had erred in relying on the alleged admission made in the plaint filed by the C.M.C. against the plaintiffs/respondents in the instant suit because it was not open to the Trial Court to pass a judgment on admission in the instant suit relying on the pleadings made in the other suit. Secondly it was contended by Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the C.M.C. that an admission in a pleading cannot be spilt up and it can be made subject to a condition that it must either be accepted subject to that condition or not accepted at all. In support of this contention Mr. Mitra had relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Birendra Nath Mallick vs. Brahma Brata Roy, 50 CWN 439. Let us now consider the first submission of Mr. Mitra. It is not in dispute that in order to obtain a judgment on admission the plaintiffs/respondents relied on the pleadings made by the appellant in their suit and also the pleadings made in the affidavit-in-opposition to the present application for judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As noted herein earlier Mr. Mitra contended before us that the pleading in the suit filed by the C.M.C. against the defendants cannot be taken into consideration at all by the Court for the purpose of passing a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the present suit. Before we deal with this argument of Mr. Mitra we may immediately look to the provisions made under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before we deal with this argument of Mr. Mitra we may immediately look to the provisions made under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as under:- "Judgment on admission.-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether only or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, wither on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. 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." 3. In the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India & Ors., 2000(7) SCC 120 , the Supreme Court, while considering the provisions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, considered the Objects and Reasons set out for that purpose and found that where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The Supreme Court further held that the object of the Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. In the said judgment the Supreme Court also held that Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. It further held that where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. It further held that where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. Therefore, from a careful examination of the provisions made in Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after considering the Objects and Reasons for which this Rule was subsequently amended and after keeping in mind the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court we are now to consider the question whether the pleadings made in the other suit can be taken into consideration as an admission in the present suit and if so, whether the said admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional acknowledgment of the liability of the appellant towards the plaintiffs/respondents. In our view, the contention of Mr. Mitra on the first question cannot be accepted at all. The C.M.C. in their plaint have admitted that they are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- to the plaintiffs/respondents. Before going into the question whether the C.M.C. have made clear, unambiguous and unconditional admission to pay a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/-, to the plaintiffs/respondents, we may now consider whether reliance could be placed by the Trial Court on the pleadings made by the appellant in their plaint in a suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. In our view, by using the word "otherwise" in Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure the scope of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been widened. The Court can rely on admission on the basis of the pleadings raised in the counter suit filed by the C.M.C. against the plaintiffs/respondents. Even assuming that the admissions made in the pleadings in the other suit between the same parties cannot be taken into consideration by the Court for the purpose of giving a judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the instant suit then we are also of the view that in view of the admission made by the appellant in their affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Trial Court was justified in relying on such admission and pass a judgment on admission. Let us now consider whether there is clear, unambiguous, unconditional admission made by the appellant in the present case or not. Mr. Mitra relying on the aforesaid decision reported in the case of Birendra Nath Mallick vs. Brahma Brata Roy, 50 CWN 439, had taken us to the alleged admissions made by the appellant in the pleadings. For this purpose paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of the plaint filed in the suit filed by the C.M.C. would be required to be considered. Mr. Mitra contended, after taking us through the aforesaid three paragraphs of the plaint of that suit that the alleged admissions, if there be any, were not clear, unambiguous and unconditional. In order to appreciate this submission of Mr. Mitra we feel it necessary to quote the aforesaid three paragraphs of the plaint of the suit filed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation which runs as under:- "31. The plaintiff states that the defendants are entitled to receive the plaintiff is liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- in respect of all the items of supplies of Audco make Butterfly Valves received during 1997 and 1998 being reasonable prices thereof and not at the rates as bills by the defendant No. 2 as mentioned in paragraph 28 hereof. 32. The plaintiff by its letter dated July 21st, 1998 has informed the defendants that in respect of the said outstanding dues against supplies a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- is only payable by the plaintiff in respect of all supplies made during 1997 and 1998 and asked the defendants to rectify the bills already submitted and to receive the amount of Rs. 31,55,740/- in full and final settlement. The defendants have refused to accept the said proposal. 33. The plaintiff claims a declaration that in respect of the dues outstanding against supplies of Audco make Butterfly Valves mentioned in the chart annexed hereto and the defendants are entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- only in full and final settlement." 4. Similar is the alleged admission made by the C.M.C. the appellant herein in their affidavit-in-opposition to the application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mr. 31,55,740/- only in full and final settlement." 4. Similar is the alleged admission made by the C.M.C. the appellant herein in their affidavit-in-opposition to the application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mr. Mitra, admission made in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 cannot at all be spilt up as the defendants/appellants sought to admit the claim of the plaintiff/ respondent only on the ground that the said amount was only payable in full and final settlement of the dues of the plaintiff/respondents. Therefore, Mr. Mitra contended that when they had disputed that they were not liable to pay more than the amount mentioned above, the question of admitting the claim being unambiguous and unconditional did not arise at all as they had clearly stated in their plaint that such an amount was only payable in full and final settlement. Mr. Hiranmoy Dutta, the learned senior Counsel disputed the submissions made on behalf of the C.M.C. According to Mr. Dutta, there has been a clear, unambiguous and unconditional admission made by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in their pleadings to the extent of Rs. 31,55,740/-. After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid pleadings made in the other plaint and also in the affidavit-in-opposition filed to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are of the view that so far as Rs. 31,55,740/- is concerned, there is clear, unambiguous and unconditional admission of the liability of the C.M.C. to pay the aforesaid sum to the plaintiffs/ respondents. Mr. Mitra strongly stressed on the word "in full and final settlement" as made in the pleadings. According to Mr. Mitra the Court is helpless in passing a judgment on admission when the defendant categorically stated that although the amount is payable but the plaintiff/respondent must accept the same in full and final settlement of their dues. To answer this question we have carefully read the aforesaid three paragraphs in detail and after examining the said pleadings we are of the view that there is clear, unambiguous and unconditional liability to the extent of Rs. 31,55,740/- on the part of the C.M.C. to the plaintiffs/respondents. To answer this question we have carefully read the aforesaid three paragraphs in detail and after examining the said pleadings we are of the view that there is clear, unambiguous and unconditional liability to the extent of Rs. 31,55,740/- on the part of the C.M.C. to the plaintiffs/respondents. Whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to more than the aforesaid sum or the said admitted amount was paid in full and final settlement would be gone into by the Trial Court at the time of hearing of the suit. Therefore, we are of the view that when clear admission has been made in the pleadings as well as in the affidavit-in-opposition to the application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 the Court is not at all helpless to pass a judgment on admission. It is true that if an admission is made, the party who has made such admission, is entitled to explain such admission before the Court. In this case admittedly, in our view, the admission was unambiguous and clear admission to the extent that the C.M.C. was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/-. We do not find any explanation from the records so far as the C.M.C. is concerned explaining the admission on the part of the C.M.C. Accordingly we are not in agreement with Mr. Mitra that the admission made by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation either in their plaint in the other suit and in their affidavit-in-opposition was not a clear, unambiguous and unconditional admission on the part of the C.M.C. to pay a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- to the plaintiffs/respondents. Before we part with this judgment we may consider the judgment on which Mr. Mitra had strongly relied on. In our view, this Single Bench judgment of this Court is distinguishable on facts. In a suit by the plaintiff for recovery of a certain sum of money advanced by the plaintiff from four defendants, one of the defendants admitted in his written statement that he alone was liable for the money advanced by averring that the other defendants were not liable and also that he had made a part payment. In that situation an application was made under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A learned Judge of this Court held that an admission was made subject to a condition and such admission could not be spilt up. In that situation an application was made under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A learned Judge of this Court held that an admission was made subject to a condition and such admission could not be spilt up. This is not the situation in this case. As noted herein earlier the C.M.C. unequivocally admitted the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents to the extent of Rs. 31,55,740/-. The C.M.C. only sought to say that the amount mentioned above would be payable only in full and final settlement of the dues of the plaintiff/respondents. As noted herein earlier, we have already held that whether the amount to be paid to the plaintiffs/respondents would be in full and final settlement of their dues, would be decided by the Trial Court after taking evidence in the suit and also in the cross suit but the fact remains that in the present case there is an unequivocal admission in the pleadings to the extent that C.M.C. is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 31,55,740/- to the plaintiffs/respondents. Accordingly, we cannot place any reliance on the aforesaid Single Bench decision of this Court. 5. Before we part with this judgment, we may consider a further submission of Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the C.M.C. According to Mr. Mitra, the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents would not be maintainable in law in view of the prior filing of the suit by the C.M.C. We are unable to accept this submission of Mr. Mitra also. The suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was admittedly after the institution of the suit filed by the C.M.C. But after going through the plaints of the two suits we are prima facie satisfied that the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,56,46,560/- is quite maintainable in law. However, since this question is not an issue before us, we need not go into this question in detail. All these questions are left open to be decided by the Trial Court if occasion arises. Any observations and findings made by us, while deciding this appeal, would not be taken into consideration by the learned Trial Judge and if any approach is made as to the maintainability of the present suit in view of filing of a prior suit filed by the C.M.C., the Trial Court would be free to decide the said question in accordance with law. 6. 6. No other point was raised by the appellant before us. Accordingly we do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. The appeal is thus dismissed. In view of the order passed in the appeal if any interlocutory application is pending, the same has become in fructuous and accordingly disposed of. 8. There will be no order as to costs. Jayanta Kr. Biswas, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed. Later : 9. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the C.M.C. prays for stay of operation of this judgment for three weeks. The prayer is refused as we do not find that this is a fit case where such prayer can be allowed. 10. Parties are at liberty to take the gist of this judgment and the same shall be communicated to the authorities concerned and the authorities concerned shall act on such communication. 11. All parties are to act on a xerox certified copy of the judgment on the usual undertaking subject to all formalities. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.: I agree.