Judgment : 1. This Civil 1st Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th of September, 2008 whereby suit, titled Abdul Rashid Naikoo versus State and others, of the respondent No.1 - plaintiff came to be decreed, hereinafter for short impugned judgment. 2. Abdul Rashid Naikoo filed a suit in the Court of Principal District Judge, Baramulla under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short CPC, for recovery of Rs.18,20,400/- with 18% interest. Plaintiff has also sought decree of declaration declaring the plaintiff entitled to an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs on account of mesne profits and Rs.5.00 lacs on account of mental agonies and had also prayed for awarding of costs. It is apt to reproduce the prayer clauses herein :- "In the premises it is as such prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue Decree in terms of Order XXXVII, CPC of Rs.18,20,400/-lacs with an interest @ 18% in favour of plaintiff against the defendants which has become due to the plaintiff on 31-03-2005, 30-06-2005 & 01-12-2006. a) Decree for declaration declaring the plaintiff entitled to an amount of Rs.5 lacs on account of mesne profits and Rs.5 lacs on account of mental agonies suffered at the hands of defendants. b) Costs of the suit may also me decreed in favour of the plaintiff. c) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper." 3. A notice came to be issued vide order dated 15th of February, 2008. It appears that defendants 3-6 -appellants 2-5 herein caused appearance through counsel and ex parte proceedings came to be drawn against defendants 1-2 - State of Jammu and Kashmir and Managing Director, JKPDC. State has not preferred an appeal and is pro forma respondent herein. While as defendant No.2 is appellant No.1. Defendants 3-6 -appellants 2-5 filed written statement on 4th of July, 2008 and parties present came to be directed to file documents vide order dated 4th of July, 2008. It appears that parties have not produced documents right from that date till 20th of August, 2008. While as defendant No.2 is appellant No.1. Defendants 3-6 -appellants 2-5 filed written statement on 4th of July, 2008 and parties present came to be directed to file documents vide order dated 4th of July, 2008. It appears that parties have not produced documents right from that date till 20th of August, 2008. It appears that in terms of order dated 20th of August, 2008 learned counsel for plaintiff made a submission/ prayer that defendants have admitted the averments made in the suit and accordingly prayed that suit be decreed and trial Court heard the matter and posted the suit for orders on 9th of September, 2008. It is apt to reproduce interim order dated 20th of August, 2008 :— "Parties through counsel present. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants have admitted the averments made in the suit in principle vide the W/S filed before this Court. He therefore prays that the parties not having any variance, the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Arguments heard. Put upon for order on 9-9-2008 i.e. 9th of Sept. 2008." 4. On 9th of September, 2008, case came to be adjourned for 22nd of September, 2008. After 22nd of September, 2008, there is no interim order or order sheet on the file. However, it appears that on 24th of September, 2008, the impugned judgment came to be passed. The trial Court has held that the defendants have admitted the case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and accordingly decreed the suit. In the impugned judgment trial Court has referred and relied on Order XV, Rule 4, CPC and Order XII, Rule 6, CPC. 5. Heard. Perused. I am of the considered view that trial Court has passed trash judgment and has given a goby to the procedure prescribed by the CPC. The trial Court has not followed the procedure prescribed in the CPC which governs the suits presented in terms of Order XXXVII, CPC. The trial Court has issued a simple summon-notice and has not dealt with the case as was to be dealt in terms of the procedure contained in Order XXXVII, CPC. It appears that trial Court is unaware of the procedure which governs the suits covered under Order XXXVII, CPC. 6. The trial Court has issued a simple summon-notice and has not dealt with the case as was to be dealt in terms of the procedure contained in Order XXXVII, CPC. It appears that trial Court is unaware of the procedure which governs the suits covered under Order XXXVII, CPC. 6. After diarizing the suit in terms of Order XXXVII, CPC summons were to be issued to the defendant in Form 4 contained in Appendix-B, CPC and thereafter procedure contained in Rules 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Order XXXVII, CPC was to be followed which has not been done. Plaintiff had prayed for three reliefs as indicated above, while as the suit has been decreed only for recovery of Rs.18,20,400/- with 6% interest with costs. The trial Court has fallen in error and appears to have not applied its mind while passing the judgment in hot haste. Admittedly defendants 1 and 2 were in ex parte and how judgment came to be passed against them on the basis of so-called alleged admission made by defendants 3-6. This aspect of the matter has also been ignored. Even in order dated 20th of August, 2008, it is recorded that learned counsel for parties were present, there is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that the ex parte proceedings drawn against defendants 1 and 2 were recalled. They were not present in the Court nor was written statement filed on their behalf, then how decree has been passed against defendant Nos.1 and 2 also, is not forthcoming. 7. Defendants 3 to 6 have filed reply. In the preliminary objections they have averred that there was a delay on the part of the contractor-plaintiff and the work was not completed within the stipulated period. It is also averred that the liabilities/bills were to be cleared by the Committee after conducting physical verification. The defendants 3-6 have also made Parawise reply. There is no admission made by them in terms of Order XII, Rule 4, CPC. In Para 8, defendants have specifically averred that work-done claim was subject to the clearance of bills by the Committee as also by the Divisional Office. 8. Order XII, Rule 6, CPC provides how to make a judgment on admissions. It is apt to reproduce Order XII, Rule 6, CPC herein : "6. In Para 8, defendants have specifically averred that work-done claim was subject to the clearance of bills by the Committee as also by the Divisional Office. 8. Order XII, Rule 6, CPC provides how to make a judgment on admissions. It is apt to reproduce Order XII, Rule 6, CPC herein : "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 onthe 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." 9. While going through this provision of law it is obvious that the Court has to record satisfaction about the admission of the claim(s) at any stage of the case. Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove defendants 1 and 2 Pro forma respondent and appellant No.1 were in ex parte so no admission was made by them. While going through the written statement by other defendants-appellants 2 to 5, as discussed hereinabove, no such admission has been made. Thus the impugned judgment is bad in law, came to be passed without application of mind, in hot haste and without following due procedure. 10. Accordingly this appeal is allowed, impugned judgment and decree is set aside. Suit is remanded back for trial as per the law and procedure applicable. Parties are directed to cause their appearance before the trial Court on 2nd of August, 2010. Registry to prepare decree sheet accordingly. Send down the trial Court record along with copies of judgment and decree sheet.