Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 950 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shanker Singh Gehlot

2006-03-24

KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA

body2006
Judgment Krishan Kumar Acharya, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 210.1985 passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur. The trial Court has passed the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission made in Paras 11 and 16 of the written statement. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that learned trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff partly by applying the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The pleadings which are alleged to have been made on behalf of the appellant in Paras No. 11 and 16 of the written statement did not amount to admission according to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and it cannot be treated as admissible in pleadings. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn my attention towards the Paras No. 11 and 16 of the written statement and schedule appended therewith and argued that defendant-appellant has stated in written statement that extra and excess work was done and the amount of this additional works comes to Rs. 70,789/-. This was clear admission of the defendant and it has also been sent for the sanction to the higher Authority, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff partly to the extent of Rs. 70,789/-. Therefore, no interference is called for. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which reads as under:-"6. Judgment on admissions.-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading 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 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. (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." 5. It is clear that if admission is made in pleadings, the Court has jurisdiction to decree the suit of that amount. (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." 5. It is clear that if admission is made in pleadings, the Court has jurisdiction to decree the suit of that amount. I have also gone through the Paras No. 11 and 16 of the written statements, which are as follows:- 6. Learned District Judge after considering both the paras have decreed the suit. I do not agree with the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant. There was clear admission of defendant in written statement that extra and excess work was done and the amount of this additional works comes to Rs. 70,789/-. I do not find that the Judgment and decree under challenge suffers from any illegality or irregularity. I also find from the record that thereafter, the suit was finally decided by learned District Judge on 30.03.1994 and State has filed another appeal being S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 100/1994 which is still pending before this Court. From the said connected appeal, it appears that Government has already paid this amount to the plaintiff-appellant. Looking to entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the Judgment and decree dated 210.1985 passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur. 7. Accordingly, this first appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.