JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J —Instant petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) assailing impugned order dated 17.8.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , Sirmaur at Nahan allowing an application under Order 12 Rule 3-A read with Section 151 CPC bearing CMA No. 19/6 of 2016 filed in civil suit No. 110/1 of 2012, by the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) whereby learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , Nahan has ordered deemed admission of the documents on behalf of defendant, referred in application. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record. 3. Controversy in present petition in brief is that after completion of pleadings i.e. filing of replication on 10.7.2013, the trial Court listed the case for presence of parties on 19.8.2013, for admission and denial and compliance of Section 89 CPC. The said order reads as under:- "Replication filed. Taken on record. Let the file be listed for admission and denial and compliance of Section 89 CPC and presence of parties on 19.8.2013." 4. On 19.8.2013 defendant was not present and following order was passed:- "Defendant is not present, hence, admission and denial could not be done. Let the file be listed for settlement of issues on 11.9.2013." 5. Thereafter, on 11.9.2013, plaintiff preferred an application under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC praying for recording admission or denial in respect of documents referred in application or legal consequences and effects of neglect of the defendant to admit or deny the same. 6. Defendant contested the said application by stating that documents had not been supplied to him and contents of those documents required to be proved on merits and as such those documents could not be answered in application and as the pleadings for damages based on criminal jurisprudence were to be proved by plaintiff beyond all doubts and also by cross examining the defendant wherein the defendant would have opportunity to explain his version. 7. 7. With regard to issue of absence of defendant on the date fixed for admission and denial i.e. 19.8.2013, raised in the application, it was explained that absence of defendant was on account of illness and it was also claimed that counsel for the defendant had submitted to the Court that admission and denial in present case was not possible as the defendant had to explain all documents and plainitff was required to prove his case and for that reason only, the Court had passed the order that admission and denial was not possible and case was fixed for framing of issues. 8. It is also convassed that once it has been recorded by the Court that admission and denial was not possible and case was listed for framing of issues, it was not permissible under law to again ask the defendant to admit or deny the documents as it was amounting to review of order dated 19.8.2013 without having any jurisdiction to do so as the powers under Order 12 Rule 2-A CPC were to be exercised by the Court only once and the Court had already exercised the said power and thereafter the case was proceeded further, and plainitff could have moved the application for admission only within seven days from service of notice of suit whereas application in present case was moved at belated stage i.e. after about one year of service of defendant and thus for all these reasons, maintainability of application was questioned. 9. Relying upon judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case G.M.Worsted Spinning Mills vs. Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. , (1986) AIR(Punjab and Haryana) 310 (1985) 88 PLR 403 ) and referring the provisions of Order 12 Rules 2, 2-A, 3, 3-A CPC, learned Civil Judge has recorded the deemed admission of documents on behalf of defendant by allowing the application vide impugned order. 10. In civil suit admission may be of three kinds. (I) Admission of fact; (II) Admission of document; (a) Admission of documents along with contents. (b) Admission of documents without admitting its contents. (III) Admission of question of law. 11. Admission and/or denial of question of law, contrary to law, is of no consequences like even if the defendant does not dispute or admit the jurisdiction of Court, it will have no affect on adjudication of issue of jurisdiction of Court on merits. 12. (b) Admission of documents without admitting its contents. (III) Admission of question of law. 11. Admission and/or denial of question of law, contrary to law, is of no consequences like even if the defendant does not dispute or admit the jurisdiction of Court, it will have no affect on adjudication of issue of jurisdiction of Court on merits. 12. Mode of admission during trial can be classified in following manner:- (I) Admission in pleadings; (II) Admission by agreement; (III) Admission by notice; (a) Notice by party; (i) to admit facts. (ii) to admit documents. (b) Notice by Court. (i) to admit documents. (IV) Admission in evidence (a) Oral evidence. (i) In examination in chief. (ii) In cross examination. (b) Documentary evidence. (V) Admission may be (a) expressed or (b) Implied/constructive/deemed. 13. Civil Procedure Code provides admission of facts in pleadings, under the provisions of Orders 7 and 8 CPC. Admission otherwise than in pleadings is provided during examination by Court under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, in answer to interrogatories under Order 11 Rules 8 and 22, on notice under Order 12 Rules 2, 3A and 4, on oath under Order 18 Rule 3 and by agreement of parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. 14. Admission may be expressed as provided under Order 7 Rule 11, Order 11 Rule 22 and Order 12 Rules 2, 3A and 4, Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, Order 18 Rule 3 and Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and it may be constructive under Order 8 Rules 3, 4, 5 or under Order 12 Rule 2-A CPC and also under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC. 15. Notice to admit documents has been provided under Rule 2 of Order 12 CPC. Rule 3 under Order 12 CPC provides that notice to admit documents shall be in the form No.9 in Appendix ''C'' with such variations as circumstances required. Order 12 Rule 3A empowers Court also to call upon a party to admit any documents. Order 10 Rule 1 CPC deals with admission and denial with regard to pleadings of parties, whereas Order 12 Rule 2-A CPC provides deeming admission of documents, if any, which are not denied by party after service of a notice to admit those documents. 16. Order 10 Rule 1 CPC deals with admission and denial with regard to pleadings of parties, whereas Order 12 Rule 2-A CPC provides deeming admission of documents, if any, which are not denied by party after service of a notice to admit those documents. 16. Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC empowers the Court, even if no notice to admit documents has been given under Rule 2, to record admission of documents "at any stage" of proceedings on "its own motion" after calling upon any party to admit any document and in case such also to record as to whether the party admits, or refuses or neglects to admit such document. 17. I am in agreement with the ratio laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case G.M.Worsted Spinning Mills vs. Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. , (1986) AIR(Punjab and Haryana) 310, where a party unreasonably neglects or refuses to admit a document, after calling upon that party by the Court under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC to admit documents, provisions of deemed admission contained in Order 12 Rule 2-A CPC shall be applicable. 18. Order 10 Rule 1 CPC states that at the time of first hearing, the Court shall call upon the parties for admission or denial of pleadings of facts. It is now settled that first date of hearing in civil suit is when the case is called for hearing and Court has really gone into pleadings of parties and has applied its mind and such situation normally is after filing of replication. (See Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi , (2012) 4 SCC 307 , Badami (deceased) by her LRs vs. Bhali , (2012) 11 SCC 574 and Ved Prakash Wadhwa vs. Vishwa Mohan , (1981) 3 SCC 667 ) . 19. Order 10 Rule 1 empowers the Court to call upon the parties to admit or deny the allegations made in pleadings whereas Order 12 Rule 4 CPC provides that any party by notice in writing at any time prescribed under this Rule before the day fixed for hearing may call any other party to admit any specific fact or facts mentioned in such notice, for the purpose of suit only. It also provides the consequences of refusal or neglect to admit the same within six days after the service of such notice or within such further time as may be allowed by Court. Rule 5 of Order 12 CPC provides Form of Notice to admit the facts and also Form for admissions of facts with variations as circumstances may require and Rule 6 empowers the Court to make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit having regard to admission without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties. 20. Order 10 Rule 2 empowers the Court to conduct oral examination of parties or companion of the party or any person able to answer any material question relating to suit by party to the suit or his pleader is accompanied and to record the substance of such examination in writing under Rule 3 of Order 10 CPC. In case of refusal or inability of the pleader of any party or any such person accompanying a pleader as is referred to in Rule 2, Rule 4 empowers the Court to direct any party to appear in person on a date fixed which in the opinion of the Court is likely to able to answer any material in question relating to suit put to the pleader or any person exercising the power under Rule 2 of Order 10 CPC. 21. Order 10 Rule 1-A of CPC provides that after recording the admissions and denial, the Court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of settlement outside the Court as specified in Section 89 (1) of CPC and on option of parties to fix the date of admission before such Forum or authority as may be opted by the parties. 22. In the light of aforesaid provisions, present controversy in present petition is to be adjudicated upon. 23. In the present case, after filing of replication by the plaintiff, vide order dated 10.7.2013, the suit was listed for admission and denial and in compliance of Section 89 CPC with direction for presence of parties on 19.8.2013. On 19.8.2013 defendant was not present. Learned Civil Judge observed that for want of presence of defendant, admission and denial could not be done and he listed the case for settlement of issues on 11.9.2013. 24. On 19.8.2013 defendant was not present. Learned Civil Judge observed that for want of presence of defendant, admission and denial could not be done and he listed the case for settlement of issues on 11.9.2013. 24. As discussed above, it was stage of first hearing as provided under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC calling upon the parties by Court to admit or deny allegations of facts made in plaint or written statement, but are not expressly or by necessary implications admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made. 25. In order dated 10.7.2013 learned Civil Judge had also directed for compliance of Section 89 CPC. Order 10 Rule 1-A CPC provides that after recording the admission and denial, the Court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of settlement outside the Court as specified in Sub-section 1 of Section 89 CPC. It again reflects that direction to admit or deny the documents vide order 10.7.2013 was at the stage of Order 10 Rule 1 CPC. Therefore, this direction/order to the parties to admit or deny the facts was related to admission or denial of pleadings but not of documents as provided under Order 12 Rules 2 and 3-A CPC after notice by party or calling upon by Court to admit documents. 26. After passing of orders dated 10.7.2013 and 19.8.2013, defendant was never put to a notice or called upon by the Court to admit the documents except filing of application by plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC read with Section 151 CPC praying for recording defendant''s admission or denial in respect to documents (Annexures A to L) referred in said application and/or to record legal consequences and effects of neglect of defendant to admit or deny those documents. In reply to the said application, defendant had neither admitted the documents nor denied the same. Defendant had evaded either to admit or deny those documents. 27. This application was filed assuming that admission and denial directed vide order dated 10.7.2013 was called by learned Civil Judge defendant for admission and denial of documents in the presence of parties. The said contention of plaintiff is misconceived. As discussed above, on 10.7.2013 the case was not fixed for admission and denial of documents by Court as provided under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC. The said contention of plaintiff is misconceived. As discussed above, on 10.7.2013 the case was not fixed for admission and denial of documents by Court as provided under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC. The said order is completely silent as to whether the case was fixed for admission and denial of facts in pleadings or documents. However, from the stage and contents of order, it can easily be inferred that it was the stage of asking for admission and denial of pleadings under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC, which relate to admission of allegation of facts made in pleadings. Whereafter, direction for recording admission and denial of documents was prayed on behalf of defendant by filing the application by plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC. There is no notice served upon defendant as required under Order 12 Rule 2 read with Rule 3 CPC much less any order or direction issued by Court calling upon the defendant to admit the documents as provided in Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC. 28. Plaintiff has filed application under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC on 11.9.2013 and defendant had filed reply to said application on 26.10.2013 and said application was decided on 17.8.2016. The said application though stated to have been filed under Rule 3-A of Order 12 CPC but can be considered notice under Rule 2 of Order 12 CPC. Rule 3 provides a Form of Notice to admit the documents, but it also provides that such Form can have variations according to circumstances and in present case when application was filed in the year 2013 and same was finally decided on 17.8.2016, it would not be appropriate to say that said application was not a notice in the Form as provided in CPC. Form No. IX in Appendix ''C'' of CPC as referred in Rule 3 requires issuance of notice along with documents proposed to be adduced in evidence either in original or true copies thereof to the opposite party to admit the same, saving all just exceptions to the admissibility of all such documents as evidenced in the suit. In application, all documents, filed in the suit, are certified or original copies of those documents, which have been referred as Annexures A to L, have been supplied to the defendant. Therefore, this application can be considered as a notice to admit documents under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC. 29. In application, all documents, filed in the suit, are certified or original copies of those documents, which have been referred as Annexures A to L, have been supplied to the defendant. Therefore, this application can be considered as a notice to admit documents under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC. 29. Learned Civil Judge for invoking provision of deeming admission under Order 12 Rule 2A CPC has mistakenly referred order dated 10.7.2013 as an order of Court under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC. But there is another fact which justifies action of learned Civil Judge to invoke provision of deeming admission of documents. Though there was neither any notice to defendant specifically mentioning Order 12 Rule 2 read with Rule 3 nor any specific order/direction of the Court calling upon the defendant mentioning Rule 3-A to admit the documents, however, there is an application filed by plaintiff for recording admission and denial of certain documents specifically mentioned in the application. Copy of the said application was served upon defendant and the Court had directed the defendant to file reply to the said application. But inspite of such notice in the shape of application and direction of the Court defendant had neither admitted nor denied the documents, but raised issue with regard to the contents of documents. The defendant had option to admit or deny those documents without admitting the contents if warranted. Therefore, learned Civil Judge had not committed any mistake by invoking provision of deeming admission of documents under Rule 2-A of Order 12 CPC. 30. It is also borne out from record that defendant was contesting this application under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC and the trial Court has also not considered the said application as notice but has considered direction/order dated 10.7.2013 as a call by the Court upon the defendant to admit the documents. Therefore, considering entire facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to prove one more opportunity to the defendant to admit or deny documents after considering the application under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC as a notice under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC. Therefore, considering entire facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to prove one more opportunity to the defendant to admit or deny documents after considering the application under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC as a notice under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC. Even otherwise, even if application is not considered as a notice under Rule 2 of Order 12 CPC, the Court is competent and empowered under Order 12 Rule 3A CPC to call upon the defendant at any stage to admit the documents and the said power can also be exercised by this Court and also by the trial Court at this stage. 31. The defendant was put to notice of documents by filing an application on 11.9.2013 alongwith documents. Therefore, only one opportunity on a date to be fixed by the trial Court shall be granted to defendant to admit the documents. No further opportunity shall be granted thereafter. 32. In view of above discussion, present petition is disposed of with direction to the trial Court to provide an opportunity to defendant to admit the documents referred in application under Order 12 Rule 3-A CPC and proceed further in accordance with law including exercising its power under Rule 2- A of Order 12 CPC if necessary. 33. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19.5.2018 on which date the trial Court shall fix the date for admission and denial of documents under Order 12 CPC and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. 34. Petition stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous application(s) , if any. Record be returned to the trial Court forthwith.