Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 120 (UTT)

Mankiewicz Singapore Llp v. Act Fibreglass Ltd.

2020-02-24

LOK PAL SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral) - Instant civil revision, preferred under Section 115 of C.P.C. , is directed against the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun in O.S. No.491 of 2013, whereby said court has dismissed the application paper no.41C1 filed by the revisionist/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for decreeing the suit on the basis of admission of the respondent/defendant. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the revisionist/plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No.491 of 2013 against the respondent/defendant for recovery of ` 46,81,665.07 along with interest @ 24% per annum. Respondent/defendant contested the suit and filed its written statement. In the written statement, the respondent/defendant denied the plaint averments and raised a plea that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not legally maintainable. In para-9 of the written statement, the defendant pleaded that the defendant had placed orders for supply of paint and allied chemicals to the defendant but the plaintiff has deliberately not revealed the terms and conditions of supply and that the goods were not received by the defendant to its satisfaction. The defendant in his written statement has not admitted the claim of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, revisionist/plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC stating therein that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff therefore the suit filed for recovery ` 46,81,665.07 be decreed against the defendant in view of the admission made in the written statement. Said application was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing objections and it was contended that the application is not maintainable. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the material brought on record, by the impugned order dated 03.07.2019, has dismissed the application. 3. Before dwelling into the controversy, it would be apt to refer Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C., which is quoted herein below:- '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.' 4. Aforesaid provision confers power on the Court, trying the suit, to render a speedy judgment in the suit to save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. For passing a decree on the basis of admission of the defendants in the pleadings, law is well settled that the admission has to be unequivocal and unqualified and the admission in the written statement should also be taken as a whole and not in part. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of Honble Apex Court rendered in the case of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and another (2010) 6 SCC 601 . 5. In the instant case, from the perusal of the plaint and the written statement, it is abundantly clear that the defendant has nowhere admitted the case of the plaintiff. There is no clear admission of the defendant in the written statement. The defendant, in its written statement, has disputed the fact of receiving the goods to its satisfaction. Furthermore, in the objections filed against the application, the defendant has again denied any admissions of any liability. In the said reply, it has also been stated that the written statement filed by the defendant has to be read as a whole. 6. In view of the above, I am of the firm view that there is no clear admission of the case of the revisionist/plaintiff in the written statement of the respondent/defendant. That being the position, the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. Instant civil revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, as the suit is quite old, trial court is directed to make every endeavour to decide the suit at the earliest, if possible within a period of one year. 7. No order as to costs.