JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Plaintiffs’ application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC in short) seeking pronouncement of judgment and drawing decree on the basis of alleged admission made by the defendant in the written statement, has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 10.01.2023, hence, the plaintiffs have taken recourse to these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3 A civil suit was instituted by the petitioners for recovery of Rs.83,29,497/- alongwith interest pendent lite and future interest till actual realization. Gist of the plaint was that the defendant had approached the plaintiffs for taking over a petrol pump being run by the defendant. The offer was accepted by the plaintiffs. Sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The plaintiffs transferred an amount of Rs.83,29,497/- on different dates to the defendant. The defendant did not perform his part under the agreement. Therefore, the civil suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.83,29,497/- alongwith interest. The defendant filed his written statement denying plaintiffs’ claim. The plaintiffs thereafter moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking pronouncement of judgment and drawing of decree on the basis of admission allegedly made by the defendant in his written statement. Following extracts from paragraph 5 & 9 of the written statement were pressed in service to demonstrate admission of plaintiffs’ claim:- “5……..It is further submitted that till today out of Rs.1.5 crore amount of Rs.83,70,000/- is due towards the plaintiffs and in addition to this, an amount of Rs.7,48,000/- paid on account of installment of tanker truck an amount of Rs.11,55,617/- on account of balance stock is due and recoverable from the plaintiffs. “9……..The amount on record which has been received by the defendant is on account of agreement and defendant is ready and willing to perform his part to the contrary due to negligence and failure of the plaintiffs to perform their part of agreement. The amount paid by the plaintiffs is liable to be forfeited.” Defendant filed reply to the aforesaid application and emphatically opposed the prayer made therein. Learned Trial Court held that the holistic reading of the written statement does not advance plaintiff’s case about the defendant having admitted liability to the extent of Rs.83,29,497/-. The amount paid by the plaintiffs is liable to be forfeited.” Defendant filed reply to the aforesaid application and emphatically opposed the prayer made therein. Learned Trial Court held that the holistic reading of the written statement does not advance plaintiff’s case about the defendant having admitted liability to the extent of Rs.83,29,497/-. Accordingly, the application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 22 Rule 6 CPC was dismissed. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and case record, I do not find there is any error in the impugned order. This is for the following reasons:- 4(i) The defendant in his written statement has very categorically stated that “the present suit is barred by the principle of estoppel as the plaintiffs and defendant had entered into an agreement for Specific Performance of Contract Agreement and as per the agreement, plaintiffs were required to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and in this regard time had extended twice but plaintiffs fails to pay the entire consideration amount.” The defendant has further pleaded in the written statement that “ the possession of the aforesaid tanker was handed over to the plaintiffs and as per the agreement plaintiffs was required to pay the installments of the loan amount on the aforesaid tanker truck, but the same has not been paid by the plaintiffs and ultimately all the installments had been paid by the defendant, thus, the installments paid by the defendant comes to Rs.7,48,000/- which is required to be recovered in addition to the total sale amount i.e. Rs.1.5 crore for which legal right is his favour.” Apart from the already extracted portion of paragraph 5 of the written statement, which is relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the defendant in continuation to the above averments has stated that the defendant has reserves his right to recover the aforesaid amount alongwith up-to- date interest 18% as well as the amount of Rs.1 Crore on account of loss suffered due to non-functioning of petrol pump thus a false and fabricated claim by way of present suit has been filed. Hance, the suit needs to be dismissed. Hance, the suit needs to be dismissed. 4(ii) It is well settled that the Court ‘may’ pass a decree on the basis of an admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC but the discretion has to be exercised judiciously [Re: 2019 SC 4796 (Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. Vs. Daljit Singh)]. It will be apt to extract relevant paras from (2022) 10 SCC 496 (Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar), wherein law concerning grant of relief on the basis of admission was summarized as under:- “23. Order 12 Rule 6 confers discretionary power to a Court who ‘may’ at any stage of the suit or suits on the application of any party or in its own motion and without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties makes such order or gives such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admission. 24. Thus, legislative intent is clear by using the word ‘may’ and ‘as it may think fit’ to the nature of admission. The said power isdiscretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6. The said provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for fullfledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence. Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute. As per above discussion, it is clear that to pass a judgment on admission, the Court if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit. In case the judgment is pronounced by the Court a decree be drawn accordingly and parties to the case is not required to go for trial.” In the instant case, a reading of the entire written statement makes it quite apparent that the defendant has not admitted any liability towards the plaintiffs’ claim much less to the extent of Rs.83,70,000/-. In case the judgment is pronounced by the Court a decree be drawn accordingly and parties to the case is not required to go for trial.” In the instant case, a reading of the entire written statement makes it quite apparent that the defendant has not admitted any liability towards the plaintiffs’ claim much less to the extent of Rs.83,70,000/-. Learned Trial Court was justified in observing that one stray sentence from the written statement cannot be taken out of context to read as an admission of the defendant to the plaintiffs’ claim as is projected by the plaintiffs. The defendant in his written statement has repeatedly denied any financial liability towards the plaintiffs. In fact endeavour of the defendant in his written statement is that it he has to recover the amount from the plaintiffs. There is no unequivocal, unambiguous or categoric admission in the written statement on which basis decree can be drawn. In view of above, I do not find any error in the impugned order. This petition, therefore fails and is dismissed. However, I am inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there was no occasion for imposition of cost upon the plaintiffs. Accordingly, to that extent, the order shall be modified. No cost shall be payable by the plaintiffs. In case, any cost has been deposited by the plaintiffs, the same shall be refunded to them. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.