REVA KHETRAPAL, J. 1.The present application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC praying for a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.1 in the sum of Rs.25,18,610/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only) with pendente lite and future interest on the admissions made by the said defendant as mentioned in paragraph 23 of the present application. 2.The case of the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs state has been admitted by the defendant No.1 in their written statement, is that in or about August, 2005,an oral agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendant No.2 agreed to buy a consignment of Mulbury Silk Fabric of Chinese origin to be shipped from Shanghai in China to New Delhi in India. Pursuant to the said agreement, the defendant No.3 at the instance of the plaintiffs drew a Bill of Exchange on the defendants No.1 and 2, payable within sixty days from the date of Bill of Lading for a sum of USD 44,846.10 only (subsequently amended on 22.09.2005 so as to be payable within seventy five days from the Bill of Lading date). It was a term of the said Bill of Exchange that documents could be released only if duly avalised/co-accepted by the defendant No.1. In course of time, the defendant No.3–Indian Overseas Bank acting on the instructions of the plaintiff forwarded to the defendant No.1 the Bill of Lading and other documents by a covering letter dated 08.09.2005. 3. In or about September, 2005, the goods arrived at the destination at New Delhi and the defendant No.1 allowed the defendant No.2 to remove the said goods. Thereupon, the plaintiffs called upon the defendant No.1 to make payment against the aforesaid Bill of Exchange, but it was alleged by the defendant No.1 that it had no obligation to make payment thereunder. The defendant No.1 having failed to make the payment, the present suit was filed for recovery of USD 56,281. 4. Written statements were filed by the defendants No.1 to 3. The present application has been filed on the basis of three admissions allegedly made by the defendant No.1 in its written statement. The defendant No.1 having failed to make the payment, the present suit was filed for recovery of USD 56,281. 4. Written statements were filed by the defendants No.1 to 3. The present application has been filed on the basis of three admissions allegedly made by the defendant No.1 in its written statement. According to the plaintiffs, the said three admissions are as follows: .(i)The defendant No.1 along with its written statement has filed a letter dated 19.10.2005 written by the defendant No.2 to the defendant No.1, whereby the defendant No.2 had authorised the defendant No.1 to debit its account towards payment of the Bill of Exchange in respect of which the present suit has been filed. According to the plaintiffs, the said letter is a clear cut and unconditional acknowledgment of the debt and claim of the plaintiffs by the defendant No.2. .(ii)The defendant No.1, namely, ICICI Bank has filed an O.A. against the defendant No.2 for the recovery of the amount in respect of the transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2, as the defendant No.1 which was the collecting bank “after duly accepting and avalising the documents had released the goods to the defendant No.2”. The said case is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. (iii)The defendant No.1 has along with the said O.A. filed a letter dated 15.02.2006 sent by it to the defendant No.2 claiming the amount, wherein the defendant No.1 specifically stated and admitted as under: “You are very well aware that this is an international transaction and collecting bank will have to make the payment on the date of maturity or will have to return the documents to the drawer if the payment is not received from the drawee. You would definitely appreciate that the original documents were given to you on the basis of your commitment and assurance that you will make the payment on the date of maturity positively.” 5. Mr. Anil Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has urged that the defendant No.1 having filed a case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of the suit amount against the defendant No.2, it clearly stands admitted that due to the conduct of the defendants No.1 and 2, the plaintiffs have been deprived of their legitimate dues. Mr. Anil Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has urged that the defendant No.1 having filed a case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of the suit amount against the defendant No.2, it clearly stands admitted that due to the conduct of the defendants No.1 and 2, the plaintiffs have been deprived of their legitimate dues. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to state that the amount is not due to the plaintiffs. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further contends that the defendant No.1, admittedly, not having raised any objection at the time of the acceptance of the documents from the defendant No.3 or at the time of the release of documents to the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 must be deemed to have admitted its liability to pay the suit amount to the plaintiffs. Reliance is also placed on a swift message sent by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.3 in response to the swift message dated 27th October, 2005 sent by the defendant No.3 to the defendant No.1. The relevant portion of the said swift message reads as under: “We shall arrange payment for the bill on receipt of funds from the buyer for the same. We shall follow up from the buyer for the payment of bill.” ___________________________________________________________ _ 7. Mr. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has referred to the judgment of this Court in GuruNanakVidyaBhandarTrustvs.UnionofIndia&Ors.reported in 2006IVAD(DELHI)73to urge that a bare reading of the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC would show that the requirement is that an admission can be made either in pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing, and that such admissions may come at any stage of the suit, the object being that where there are clear and unambiguous admissions, no purpose would be served by going through the motion of trial as a formality. Thus, what has ______________ __ ____ __________ ____________ _______ _________________________ _______________ ______________________ __ _______________ ______________________ _____________________ __ __ ___ _______________ __________________ ____________________________ __ ____________________ ___ ___ ______________________ !!______"_#$#_ _____________%_______ ________________ __________________ _________ ___ __ _________________ ______________&___________________________________ __ _________________ ______________ ______________&____________ __ ______ ________ ______________________ _______ ___ ___________________ ()______(_________(________*__%(__+____ __ ________ ______ _________ _______ ___________ ______________&,___- ______________________ ________________ _______________ __________ ___#_________________ _________________ __ ____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _ ____________ ________________________ _____________________ _______________ ___________________.___/_________________ ______________&______ __ ____________&_________________%________________ ______ ___________ __ _____________0_%_________________ _________________ ________________ _ ________________ _____________ 1_ 2__________ _____________________________________ ______________ _1__3_&334______________________ _______________ _________________ ______ __ ____________ ______________&_ ________%______________ ___________ ______ ______ ____5__________ ___________________________________!______________ __ ___________ ___________________________________ ___ ________________ __ __________2_________ ______________&______ _______________ ___________ ____________ ____________________ _______________ ______________&______ ____________________%________________ _______ ______ ___#____________ ________________ ______________ ___ ____________________________________ _______ ____________ ______________&___ _______________0_%___ _________________ ________!________ __________________ ___ ________________ _________ _ _ ________2_____________________4_3&_&33"________________ ______________&__ _________ ______________ ______________&___*__ ____________________ ____________________________________ __________ _________________ ___ __ ___________________ _____________ ____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _ _3_ - ______________________ ____________________________ ____ _______ _ ___#_____+6__(________7_______*____2________ _______________8_39_&331__ __ _____________________________ __:________0___ ____;2_+_*,_ ___&&_.&331_________&"__&331___ __<_____________ __ ____ ___________ __________________________________ ________________ ____________________ ______________________________ __________________ __________________ __ _ ___ ______- ___________________________________ ____________________ __________________ _________________ ______________ ___ - _____________________ ____________________________________ ________&___&334__________ _____________________ _______________9__ ______ _ ___________________________ _______________ ________________ __ ____________&_+_ ______,____________________ ___ __________________=____ ____ __!##_>_________________#___________+>_#/4&&,___- __________________ _____________? ________ ______ __ _______ _ _____ __ ___________ _________ ______ _ ___ _ _ __!_____ "__ #_________ ____$ _&_ 2_____________ ______________________ __________________ _____ __________ ___________________________&___&334__________ ____________ __________ ____ _________________ _______________9___=______________________ _ ______%___ __________________ ______________________ _______________ ____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _ ___________ _________ ___ _________________________________.__/______ _ ________________ _______________________ __>_#_______/ ________._____________ _________________ _9_ 6_____ _____ ______________________ __________________ ____ __ __ _____________________!_______ _______ ___ ____________ _____________%__ ______________ ___________________________ ______________________ !!______"_ ____ __#______!____________ ___ _____________________"__________ !!_#$#_______ _____________ _________________ _____ ___________/__________________ __________________ ______________________ ______________- ___________ _________ ___________________<_________ __ ________________________________ _________________________"__________ !!_#$#___ __#__________________________ _5_______________________________ ___________%_________Thus, where the defendants have raised objections which go to the very root of the case, it would be neither proper nor just to exercise this discretion and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The rule is not intended to apply where there are serious questions to be asked and determined. The rule is not intended to apply where there are serious questions to be asked and determined. Likewise, where specific issues have been raised in spite of admissions on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff would be bound to lead evidence on those issues and prove the same before he becomes entitled to a decree and in that event, cannot have a decree by virtue of the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC without proving those ____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _ issues [See: StateBankofIndiavs.MidlandIndustriesAIR1988Delhi153,RajKumarChawlavs.LucasIndianServicesAIR2006Delhi266and M/s.SachdevaandSonsIndustriesPvt.Ltd.vs.DirectorateofRevenueIntelligencedecided by this Court on February 20, 2009 in IA No.4924/2003 in CS(OS) 1570/2001]. 14. The defendants in the instant case have, in my opinion, raised a number of questions which go to the very root of the matter and are required to be determined by this Court after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Thus, for instance, it can only be decided post trial whether the fabric dispatched by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.2 was in fact Mulbury Silk as ordered by the defendant No.2 or was an inferior/sub-standard fabric known as Viscose. Further, as held by the Division Bench, the plea of the defendant No.1 that as per Article _"+_,_____ __>___#___ _______________ __ ______________________________ ______________%_________ ______________9_ ______ __________________________ __ _____________________________________ _______*__ __________________________________________________ ________ __ :________0___ ___ _____________________________ ________________________ ______ ___________________2______ ____________ ______________ ____________ _______________________ __0_______@5_ __________<__________- __0_______ @5_ _____ ____ ___ ___ __ ______________________________________________ ____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _ ____________"3_____+_____<_________________84____,_______ __0_______ A___________ ____________ ___<___________B__________________________/ ___________!#!#!_0_%_____:__ ___!___C___- __________ __________________ ____ ____ ___ _________________2_______8_____ __>_#_____ ___ __0_______ @5_ ____________/_______.___________ _______________________ __ _____________________ ___________________2_______8+_,_____ __>_#__ __ _ ____________?_ _%_____ & _______ _ __________ _______ ________ _(____ _________ __)%_ !_ ________ _(____ __*___ __)#_ _ __________ _ !_"_#____________$___ ___ __%_!____ &$_______"_"(__#___)__!___ _("_____ __!____**_(____ #__"*___ _(_____$__#___+_(_#____ __&*____ $__ ,____________________ __$_______-%_!____&$_____ __"_"(__#__.__!_______________ _("______ !_"_#_ ____)!__!_(_ _!____**_(____#__"*___ _(_____$__(___ _#_____!__#()___ ___ _____&______/0___(____ __&*_____/___ ,_ _ _!_ _ $ ____ _ __ _ "_! _ ___*___ _ __**_(____ #__"*___ _)____$__(___ _#________ __&*_____#__!__ __________ _ $_1 _ )___ _ ___ _ $_ _ (_ &__ _$__ _ __( _ __ ___ _2"____ _(_ _____"_______#_______!__#___+_(___ _ #__"*___ _ __ ,____________________ __$________%_!____&$_____ __"_"(__#____#__!_______________ _("________#____ __!_ _ __**_(____#__"*___ _(_____$__(___ _#____ __&*___._ #__"*___ _)____$__(___ _#________ __ "_!_&*_____#_ _!_ _ __________ _ $_1 _ )___ _ ___ _ $_ _ (_ &__ _$__ _ __( _ __ ___ _2"____ _(_ _____"_______#_______!__#___+_(___ _ ____________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ _ #__"*___ _3 _4_ - ________________ ________________________ ________________________ _______ _______________________________________________________ __0_______ @5_ ___________________________ _______________9__ __ ________________ _ _________________ __!##_>_________________#___________+>_#/4&&,___- __ ____ ___________ __________________ ________________ __ __>_#__________ __________________________the documents and that it was not bound to co-accept or avalise the documents is again a matter, which, in my view, can only be put to the test after a full-fledged trial of the case. 16. Thus, whether the goods supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.2 were in conformity with the export order, whether the defendant No.2 was bound to make payment to the plaintiffs despite the fact that it had supplied defective goods, whether there was any privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1, whether the refusal of the defendant No.1 to co-accept/avalise the documents was in conformity with the ICC Uniform Rules for Collections (URC-522) and, therefore, justified and if not, as to what was the effect of the defendant No.1s omission to co-accept/avalise the documents, whether the liability of the defendants is joint and several, are all questions which cannot be summarily adjudicated upon and which are required to be determined by this Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 17. The fact that the defendant No.1 has filed recovery proceedings against the defendant No.2 or has called upon the defendant No.2 to pay the outstanding amount cannot be construed as an admission of the liability of the defendant No.1 to make payment to the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the counsel for the defendant No.1 that recovery proceedings were filed by the defendant No.1 and the demand letter issued by the defendant No.1 for the reason that if at any subsequent point of time the defendant No.1 is held liable to make payment to the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1s claim against the defendant No.2 should not be barred by limitation, leaving the defendant No.1 high and dry. Thus, in my view, the present application filed by the plaintiffs over-simplifies the matter by stating that the defendant No.1 was bound to co-accept/avalise the documents and the defendant No.1 having failed to do so and having released the same to the defendant No.2, it has become liable to make payment of the suit amount to the plaintiffs, regardless of whether the defendant No.2 is held liable by this Court to make payment to the plaintiffs in view of the defective goods supplied by it to the plaintiffs. There is, therefore, no merit in the application which is accordingly dismissed.