JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J.: At all material times Sri Asis Chattopadhyay, appellant in APD 21 of 2009 was working as an officer in the Accounts Department of Berger Paints India Limited having its office at 129, Park Street, Calcutta. In May, 2003 the respondent company upon reconciliation of accounts came to know that a sum of Rs. 33.00 lac was withdrawn by Asis from the teal of the company by way of manufacturing vague vouchers in the name of a firm "Dimensions" or "Dimensons" said to be a firm belong to the respondent No.2, Surbrata Chakraborty, in collusion and conspiracy with the other defendants being the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 who are relations and friends of Asis. According-to the company, on being confronted Asis admitted his guilt and assured to repay the sum by a writing appearing at page Nos.175-180 of the Paper Book in APD No.21 of 2009. On perusal of the said Bengali writing it appears that Asis admitted to have withdrawn Rs.33.00 lac by several cheques drawn in between August 28, 2000 to December 17, 2002. He diverted the sums amongst his relations and friends being the other respondents and acquired several movable and immovable properties details of which were given in a schedule as contained in the said Bengali writing. A criminal case was initiated against Asis. He was in custody for about 82 days, when he was released on bail. The said criminal case is still pending and awaiting its disposal. The said writing was witnessed by one K. Sarkar and one Santanu Ghosh, two employees of the respondent company. The company filed a suit as against Asis and the other respondents. The appellant in APD No. 18 of 2009 being the father of Asis who by a separate undated Bengali writing appearing at page No.181 agreed to repay the sum by instalments. The respondent company made an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against Asis and Sankar based on the said two undated writings acknowledging the debt. The application was opposed by Asis and Sankar. They contended in their respective affidavits that they were not involved any such defalcation. The respondent company made an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against Asis and Sankar based on the said two undated writings acknowledging the debt. The application was opposed by Asis and Sankar. They contended in their respective affidavits that they were not involved any such defalcation. According to them Asis was arrested and while he was in custody at Park Street Police Station, under duress, they were compelled to write such undertakings at the instance of one Asis Dutta, Manager of the respondent company. The statement of Asis was corroborated by his father Sankar in his affidavit. It was further contended before His Lordship that out of those cheques, two cheques amounting to Rs. 3.4 lac each were barred by the law of limitation and no pleading was made in the plaint as required under Order 1 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff also did not claim exemption in term of section 18(2) of the Limitation Act. His Lordship negated the contentions of the defendants. His Lordship relied upon a part payment made by Asis in May, 2003 and held that the claim was not barred by limitation. His Lordship passed a decree for Rs.32.00 lac jointly and severaly against Asis and Sankar. His Lordship also awarded cost of 800 GMs. as against the appellant/defendants'. Being aggrieved, these two appeals by Asis and Sankar have been preferred against the order dated September 5, 2008. 2. Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sankar, contended as follows: (i) The writing at page No. 181 was undated. Hence, until and unless such document was proved by the witnesses the same could not be used as a basis passing an order of judgment upon admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) The first two cheques admittedly were issued beyond three years period. In absence of a pleading required under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure coupled with section 18(2) of the Limitation Act no decree could be passed on the said sum. (iii) It was the case of the plaintiff that vouchers supporting such payment were destroyed by Asis and money was withdrawn in collusion and conspiracy with the other defendants. Unless such facts were proved through oral and/or documentary evidence no decree could be passed. (iii) It was the case of the plaintiff that vouchers supporting such payment were destroyed by Asis and money was withdrawn in collusion and conspiracy with the other defendants. Unless such facts were proved through oral and/or documentary evidence no decree could be passed. (iv) The plaintiff in their plaint contended that he was posted in the Accounts Department being authorized for dealing with the subject of transaction whereas such fact was categorically denied by Asis in his affidavit. According to him, he was posted at the relevant time entrusting separate duty which had no nexus with passing of bills of the suppliers and/or making payment therefor. Such fact was admitted by the plaintiff in their affidavit-in-reply. Hence, the onus shifted on the plaintiff to prove that although he was not entrusted to deal with the subject transactions, he did so in excess of his authority. Unless such fact was proved in a regular trial by giving adequate opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiffs witness, no decree could be passed based on the alleged admission. (v) The plaintiff in paragraph 15 pleaded the particulars of fraud which required a thorough proof by oral and documentary evidence on the basis of which a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 could be passed. (vi) The plaintiff was not definite about their claim as would appear from their own pleading as the claim of different amounts against several defendants became more than 1 crore although they categorically contended to have lost Rs. 33.00 lac only. 3. While elaborating his submission Mr. Chatterjee contended that from the tenor of the so-called writing no prudent man would come to a finding that such writing was made voluntarily. This required a detailed investigation at the regular trial. The learned Judge perhaps overlooked this aspect. 4. In support of his contention Mr. Chatterjee relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Kapil Deo Pandey vs. Vasudev Devsankar Sukla, reported in Volume 89, Calcutta Weekly Notes, Page 728 and a latest decision of the same learned Judge who passed the judgment upon admission impugned in this appeal in the case of Unique International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dinesh Kumar Singhania, reported in 2008 Calcutta Weekly Notes Page 461. 5. Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Asis, adopted the submission made by Mr. Chatterjee. In addition to above, Mr. 5. Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Asis, adopted the submission made by Mr. Chatterjee. In addition to above, Mr. Mitra contended as fallows: (i) The learned Single Judge accepted the proposition advanced by and on' behalf of the defendants to the extent that such purported acknowledgement could not have been written voluntarily. His Lordship, however, observed that such admission was not unnatural when a guilty person was confronted with his guilt. His Lordship obser"8d, confession of guilt upon confrontation was an acceptable human conduct. Once His Lordship accepted the proposition and observed that such admission was "obtained upon confrontation" His Lordship should have granted an opportunity to the defendants to contest the claim of the plaintiff through a regular trial. (ii) On perusal of the judgment and order impugned it could not be said that there had been adequate materials to come to a definite conclusion that such acknowledgement was unequivocal and would unnecessarily delay the process of obtaining decree so that the Court could pass the judgment upon such alleged admission. (iii) Asis in his affidavit categorically denied having involved in the said transaction. He categorically asserted that he was compelled to write such purported admission at the instance of Asis Dutta who never came to confront Asis by filing any affidavit. Affidavit-in-reply was filed by a person who was admittedly not present at the time of making the alleged admission. (iv) Taking into account the aforesaid discrepancies and/or anomalies sufficient doubt was raised on such alleged admission which required a regular trial. (v) If the witnesses of the plaintiff could be examined the plaint case could have been demolished. 6. In support of his contention Mr. Mitra relied on the following decisions: (i) AIR 1971 SC 1542 (Chikkam Koteswara Rao vs. Chikkam Subbarao & Ors.) (ii) All Indian Reporter, 1976, Supreme Court, Page 376 (Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) (iii) 1994, Volume - II, Calcutta Law Times, Page 402 (Manick Chand Jajodia vs. Lalchand Agarwal) (iv) 2006, Volume - I, Calcutta High Court Notes Page 297 (Asis Kumar Das vs. Rekha Mukherjee) 7. Upon consideration of the submission of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that it is an admitted position that the appellants had signed on the so-called undated admissions. Upon consideration of the submission of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that it is an admitted position that the appellants had signed on the so-called undated admissions. If we peruse the admission of Asis, we find that he made statement in details as to how he had withdrawn Rs.33 lac totally on different dates ranging from September, 2000 to December, 2002. He had given the statement in details about the date and the quantum of withdrawal of the money and how the other defendants were involved in the matter of withdrawing the money from the respondent company. Not only that he also admitted how the ill-gotten money were paid to different defendants who are none but his father, wife, relations and other common friends. He also stated what properties or other movable properties he had acquired out of such ill-gotten money. All these had been done in presence of two colleagues of Asis. His father Sankar also gave an undertaking admitting his obligation to return the money and the fact how he would return the money to the respondent company. From his statement, it appears that he also made statement in presence of two witnesses. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that those witnesses did not file any affidavit in support of admission. But on perusal of the plaint case, we find that the plaint was supported by an affidavit worn by the competent person of the respondent company. It is not at all required that the statements of the plaintiff would be supported by affidavit of the persons who became the witnesses to the admission. Rather the person who had acquaintance over the entire matter is the competent person to swear an affidavit in support of the plaint case and this had been done in the suit. The manner in which Asis had made statements in details admitting his guilty appears to us to have been made voluntarily and this was reflected in his statement. It does not appear at all that the appellants had made statements under coercion, threat or compelling circumstances as contended by the appellants. The manner in which Asis had made statements in details admitting his guilty appears to us to have been made voluntarily and this was reflected in his statement. It does not appear at all that the appellants had made statements under coercion, threat or compelling circumstances as contended by the appellants. Had it been made under coercion, threat or compelling circumstances, immediately after making such statements the appellants specially Sankar could have lodged a diary with the local police station or the higher police officers such as Commissioner of Police or Director General of Police. But we find that the appellant did not take any such step. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that such steps could not be taken because immediately after arrest Asis was detained in the judicial custody for 82 days and so if Sankar took any step against taking the statement under coercion, etc., an impact would have come against Asis who was then detained in the judicial custody. But from the materials on record, we do not find that the appellants had taken any step after release of Asis from the judicial custody after 82 days' detention. If the appellants were apprehended by the local police station or the higher police officers, they could have sent a protest petition to the local police station or to any higher police authority by registered post to show at least that they had raised an objection against taking of the admission under coercion, etc. Therefore, we are of the view that as per materials on record, there is no iota of evidence relating to coercion, threat, etc. in making the admission by the appellants. Consequently, we are of the view that the said two statements were made by the appellants voluntarily. 8. Mr. Mitra, appearing for Asis, submitted that if those witnesses mentioned in the so-called admission were examined, the plaint case could have been demolished. In the instant case, the plaintiff filed the suit for passing decree on the basis of admission and upon perusal of the materials on record, we have held just earlier that the appellants failed to show that there had been any coercion or threat in obtaining the admission. So the question of examining the persons mentioned in the admission does not arise at all. The Court can well pass a decree on admission if the admission is proved properly. So the question of examining the persons mentioned in the admission does not arise at all. The Court can well pass a decree on admission if the admission is proved properly. So the submission for regular trial to prove the plaint case does not arise at all. The Court can well pass a decree on admission if the admission is proved properly. So the submission for regular trial to prove the plaint case does not arise at all. 9. During argument, it has also been submitted by Mr. Mitra appearing for Asis that Asis had no money at all as per his bank account as described in the paper book and from the record it does not appear that he had any hand in taking the money. He also submitted that if the materials and machines for preparing paints had been purchased those must have been entered as materials in the office registers and that there were other officers who were involved in defalcation. Those registers and officers were not brought in picture in the matter. In this regard, only Asis had been made liable for causing loss of the respondent company. The contention whether any other person was liable or not or if the office records were produced Asis could not be held guilty, we hold, cannot be considered at all because in the instant appeal, we are examining the fact whether a decree could be passed on the basis of admission made by the appellants under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So the question of involving other persons in the suit or production of other documents to show whether any other person is liable or not; are not a matter of consideration at all in the present appeal. Similarly, the contention of Mr. Mitra to the effect that the allegation of the respondent company that the fake documents relating to purchase of materials and machines had been destroyed by Asis just after passing of the bills and cheques issued, cannot be accepted, because we are not going into the details about the claim of the respondent company; but to consider the fact which were admitted by the two appellants in their undertakings to repay the ill-gotten money. 10. Next point to be considered is limitation. 10. Next point to be considered is limitation. As per plaint case, the first two transactions that is issuance of the first two cheques appearing at page 6 of the paper book took place in September, 2000 amounting to Rs. 6,80,000/-total. Limitation in respect of a crime does not always commence from the date of occurrence of the offence but also runs from the date when it comes to knowledge. The respondent company made it clear that they had come to know about the defalcation of money of the respondent company only in May, 2003. The suit was filed on 24.09.2003 that is after three years from the date of issue of the first two cheques dated 08.09.2000 and 22.09.2000 respectively but within 5 months from the date of detection. From the paper book, we find that after detection of defalcation the respondent company made enquiry and then the appellants admitted the defalcation by making undated statements. This must have been done some time after detection that is after May, 2003. Thereafter as per materials placed in the record Asis issued a post dated cheque dated 09.06.2003 for Rs. 1 lac in favour of the respondent company as part repayment. Then he actually paid Rs. 1,00,500/- by issuing another cheque of a different bank in favour of the respondent company in May, 2003. This is also a fact of acknowledgment of the obligation to make repayment and so according to section 18(2) of the Limitation Act a fresh period of limitation starts from the date of acknowledgment. If we take the date of detection as in May, 2003, we find that the said suit was filed with the period of limitation. The appellants made admission in their undated statements. They did not state when they made such statements or if prior to May, 2003. So it is obvious that such statements of admission had been made by the two appellants some time after May, 2003 when the fact of defalcation was detected. So a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when they made such admission and obviously without any evidence to the contrary we are bound to accept that such admission had been made by the two appellants some time after May, 2003. 11. Mr. So a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when they made such admission and obviously without any evidence to the contrary we are bound to accept that such admission had been made by the two appellants some time after May, 2003. 11. Mr. Chatterjee also contended that the plaintiff did not show the ground upon which it prayed for exemption from limitation and if it was not shown in the plaint the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the claim amounting to Rs. 6,80,000/-. In this respect, upon due consideration of the totality of the matter, we find that the contention of Mr. Chatterjee is not in respect of the entire claim of the respondent company against the defendants but in respect of two cheques appearing as item Nos. l and 2. Therefore, the entire suit is not barred by limitation but part of the claim prima facie appears to have been made after expiry of the period of limitation. As discussed earlier immediately after detection of the fact of defalcation Asis and Sankar were interrogated and they made admission. Thereafter Asis made a payment of Rs.1,00,500/- in favour of the respondent company in May, 2003 as part repayment. Therefore period of limitation shall be computed from the date of acknowledgement. Such ground of exemption from the law of limitation, we find, is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint. Therefore, we are of the view that so far as item Nos.1 and 2 of the cheques are concerned, the claim for exemption clearly falls within the proviso of Order 7 Rule 6 of the CPC. As a result, we hold that the suit is not barred by limitation. So a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the repayment was made as per section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As per .materials on record such repayment of Rs.1,00,500/- was made by Asis on 14.05.2003. So we are of the view that the claim of the plaintiff especially in item Nos. 1 and 2 at page 6 is not barred by limitation. 12. Mr. As per .materials on record such repayment of Rs.1,00,500/- was made by Asis on 14.05.2003. So we are of the view that the claim of the plaintiff especially in item Nos. 1 and 2 at page 6 is not barred by limitation. 12. Mr. Chatterjee contended that the application of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was not subjected to strict tests under the provisions of Order 37 of the CPC or Chapter 13A of the Rules of the Original Side of the Hon'ble Court. In this regard, we are of the view that Order 37 of the CPC provides a summary procedure and the Order 37 Rule 1 sub-rule (2) lays down what classes of suits may be tried summarily under that provisions such as suits for bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, recovery of debt or liquidated demand, a written contract on a guarantee, etc. In the instant suit, the respondent company prayed for a decree for admission and this is provided under Order 12 Rule 6 for speedy disposal of the matters which are admitted by the defendants. In the present matter under dispute the respondent company wanted to avail itself of the benefit of Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC and there is no bar to pass a decree on admission 'provided the conditions under Order' 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, are satisfied. For that reason, the plaintiff does not require to file a suit for summary procedure where there is a scope to prolong the suit if the amount is not admitted by the defendants in the written statement. Therefore, we are of the view that the Trial Court is within in its competence to pass a decree on admission, if duly proved. 13. During argument, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that Sankar was an Assistant Teacher and there was enough scope to get money from his salary and tuition fees. So it was not impossible for him to purchase property at Beliaghata and Maruti car in his name. Similarly, it was not impossible for him to renovate his paternal house at Udaynarayanpur, Howrah. For that reason, Sankar could not be blamed at all over the allegation of defalcation. In this respect, upon considering all the materials placed before us, we find that respondent company was able to show how the defendant Nos. Similarly, it was not impossible for him to renovate his paternal house at Udaynarayanpur, Howrah. For that reason, Sankar could not be blamed at all over the allegation of defalcation. In this respect, upon considering all the materials placed before us, we find that respondent company was able to show how the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 had amassed huge property during the relevant period that is September/ 2000 to December, 2002. We are told that Sankar retired in 1998. The burden of proof does not always lie on the plaintiff. It shifts from plaintiff to defendant when the plaintiff was able to show by materials that huge property had been amassed by the defendants in the relevant period. Therefore, the burden shifted upon the appellants to show how they had acquired such property. It was stated by the respondent company that Asis got a salary of Rs.10,000/- only p.m. at the relevant period. In this respect, no bank pass book in the name of Sankar was produced before the Court. Asis mentioned 4 bank saving pass books showing nominal deposits' within the' range of Rs.32/- to 1,000/- only to show that he had no savings at all. The respondent company tried to bring the Subpoena in respect of the bank accounts of the appellants in vain; but the appellants did not produce that bank account to show that they had huge savings or cash certificate, etc. to show that they were able to acquire so much properties as stated in their admission without any money as stated by the plaintiff as ill-gotten money obtained from the respondent company. From the bank statement of the respondent company, we find that Asis had not only account No. 13015 with the Bank of India, College Street Branch but Sankar had another account bearing No.4684 with the said Bank of India, College Street Branch showing accumulation of money during the relevant period. Statement of such bank account of Sankar was not produced before us. Nor did Sankar explain how he acquired Rs.1,50,000/- on 14.03.2002 that is within the relevant period. Therefore, we hold that the appellants did not discharge their burden of proof by way of explanation how they made huge accumulation of money during the relevant period. 14. Mr. Statement of such bank account of Sankar was not produced before us. Nor did Sankar explain how he acquired Rs.1,50,000/- on 14.03.2002 that is within the relevant period. Therefore, we hold that the appellants did not discharge their burden of proof by way of explanation how they made huge accumulation of money during the relevant period. 14. Mr. Chatterjee referred to the decisions of 2000(7) SCC 120 and 2006(1) CHN 297 and submitted that before passing a decree on admission proper opportunities should have been given to the defendants to defend themselves in the suit in which Order 12 Rule 6 was invoked. In this regard, we hold that summons was served upon all the defendants but except the defendant Nos.1 and 3 that is Asis and Sankar other defendants did not contest the suit. The defendant Nos. 7 and 8 were stated to run a business in the name and style of the defendant No.6 which was described as "Dimensions" a partnership firm run by the defendant Nos. 7 and 8 who were father and son. Again the defendant No.2, Subrata Chakraborty, was said to carryon a business in the name and style of "Dimensons" as 'sole proprietor thereof. This defendant No.2 was the brother-in-law of Asis. The defendant No.4 was the wife of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.5 was said to be the second wife of Asis (defendant No.1). The defendant No.7 was a close friend of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.8 was the father of the defendant No.7. Thus, we find that the rest defendants are either close relations or a friend of the defendant No.1 and his father. Therefore, in consideration of the totality of the materials placed before the Trial Court, we find that moneys obtained in the pretext of a business named "Dimensions" or "Dimensons" had ultimately been siphoned off by the defendant No. 1 in the name of himself, his father, wife and other close relations. When everything was detected Asis admitted the fact of defalcation of the money of the respondent company by siphoning off the same by way of tendering false bills and then destroying the same after obtaining the cheques against the bills. When everything was detected Asis admitted the fact of defalcation of the money of the respondent company by siphoning off the same by way of tendering false bills and then destroying the same after obtaining the cheques against the bills. We are of the view that the defendants got sufficient opportunity to explain their stand and upon consideration of the materials, we are of the view that the Trial Court rightly accepted the admission made by Asis and Sankar. 15. Mr. Chatterjee, also referred to the decisions of AIR 2006 Delhi 320 and CLT 1994(2) HC 402 to show that if the defendant makes specific denial in the written statement and if admission is not unequivocal, unconditional and unambiguous, no decree could be passed on admission. In the instant case, we find from the admission of Asis that he not only state how he had amassed wealth by defalcation of the money of the respondent company, he also stated how those moneys were utilized in acquiring properties in the name of his close relations. He also stated that he was not influenced .in any way in making the admission. Not only that he also prayed for apology for taking money from the respondent company illegally. So upon entire consideration of the statements supported by circumstantial facts such as inaction of the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to take appropriate steps and also not defending the suit by other defendants, we are of the view that the admission of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was unequivocal, unconditional and unambiguous with promise to pay back the money taken. 16. The appellants did not plead admission in their affidavit-in-opposition. We find that the appellants made admission on separate sheets after the fact of defalcation had been detected in May, 2003. The appellants got opportunity to explain why they made such admission and they pleaded coercion and compelling circumstances. But from the subsequent conduct or inaction on their part as discussed earlier, it revealed that they made admission on their own accord and not under coercion and compelling circumstances. We are of the view that the Court can act upon such admission within the term 'otherwise' as expressed in Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. Our observations get support from the decision reported in 2000(7) SCC 120 . We are of the view that the Court can act upon such admission within the term 'otherwise' as expressed in Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. Our observations get support from the decision reported in 2000(7) SCC 120 . The respondent company having been able to prove the fact of admission, the burden of proof shifts upon the appellants to discharge their onus of proving their pretext of coercion and compelling circumstances to execute the paper of admission. So on being failure to discharge their (appellants) burden of proof, we hold that the respondent company was able to prove the liability of the defendants to the extent of Rs. 31,99,500/- lac (after deduction of 1,00,500.00 already paid). The learned Single Judge passed a decree on admission over the sum of Rs.32 lac. Though from the petition of respondent company it appears that their claim was more than rupees one crore against the defendants, the learned Single Judge did not grant the entire relief as indicated in the plaint but only to the extent which covers within the admission of the appellants. 17. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly accorded the decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. But the decretal amount will be of Rs. 31,99,500/- instead of Rs.32 lac. So the plaintiff do get a decree of Rs. 31,99,500/- against the defendant Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally on admission. The decree of the Trial Court stands modified to this extent. Save this modification, we are of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree on admission. 18. Accordingly, the two appeals fail to succeed and the two appeals are, therefore, dismissed save above modification. 19. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 20. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the learned Advocate for the parties on their usual undertakings. Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.: I agree. Appeals dismissed.