Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1235 (RAJ)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Rajesh Gehlot S/o Shri Jagdish Singh

2025-05-02

ARUN MONGA

body2025
ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. The instant appeal is against an order dated 17.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Appeal No.300/2017, vide which judgment & decree dated 03.03.2017 of trial court was set-aside and suit has been remanded to the learned trial court. 2. Brief facts first. The appellant - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), filed a suit for recovery of ?34,872/- against the respondent-Rajesh Gehlot, who had obtained three telephone connections. BSNL filed the suit on 01.10.2000 alleging unpaid telephone bills for services availed by the respondent. 2.1 In the written statement, evidence, and cross-examination, the respondent admitted that the bills were received but disputed the liability. No payment was thus made against them. However, based on admission qua receipts of bills, the learned trial court decreed the suit on 03.03.2017 in favour of the appellant, awarding ?34,872/- with 9% annual interest from the date of filing until realization. 2.2 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the respondent consumer filed an appeal. Learned appellate court, vide its order dated 17.05.2023, accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Hence, the instant appeal by BSNL. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the Appellate Court’s remand order, arguing that it erroneously overlooked the respondent’s clear admission of non-payment, which forms the basis of the recovery suit. The admission, supported by oral and documentary evidence, including the defendant’s Written Statement, cross-examination, and exhibits (1 to 19), is sufficient to sustain the claim without need for remand. In support thereof he cites the Apex Court’s ruling in Karam Kapahi & Others vs. M/s Lal Chand Public Charitable & Another (2010) 4 SCC 753 , which states that admissions—whether in pleadings, documents, or interrogatories—do not require independent proof unless directed by the court, particularly in commercial disputes like non-payment of bills. He submits that The suit involves unpaid bills for three telephone connections, with the defendant admitting non- payment. The trial court’s findings, based on unchallenged testimony (PW-2) and cross-examined testimony (PW-1), along with documentary evidence, firmly establish the claim. He argues that the remand serves no purpose, as it is unlikely to alter the trial court’s conclusion, and thus urges that the instant appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, respondent (appears in person) supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of the instant appeal. 5. He argues that the remand serves no purpose, as it is unlikely to alter the trial court’s conclusion, and thus urges that the instant appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, respondent (appears in person) supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of the instant appeal. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file along with the documents therewith. 6. The learned trial court framed following issues, translation of the which is as below :- (1). As per the facts stated in para number 3 of the plaint, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?34,872/- as outstanding amount along with due interest from the defendant?" --- Responsibility of the plaintiff (2). Relief?" 7. Reference first may be had to the impugned appellate order dated 17.05.2023, particularly, para 45 thereof, translation of which reads as under :- “45. This Court agrees with the argument raised by the appellant in the memo of appeal, because the documents that were considered and formed the basis of the impugned judgment were not exhibited before the court in accordance with the law. Witness PW-2 Bhanwarlal did exhibit all these documents before the court, but the defendant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witness Bhanwarlal. Although the defendant did cross-examine witness PW-1 O.P. Chouhan, the documents marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-20 were not exhibited through PW-1 O.P. Chouhan during his testimony. The presentation of documents by PW-1 O.P. Chouhan indicates that there was no proper exhibition of those documents as per procedure, and there was also no cross-examination regarding them. In other words, Exhibits 1 to 19 were not properly exhibited through witness PW-1 O.P. Chouhan, and although they were exhibited through PW-2 Bhanwarlal, the defendant was denied an opportunity to cross- examine him. Under these circumstances, the Learned Trial Court based its judgment and decree on documents that were inadmissible in evidence and not properly exhibited in accordance with the law, which cannot be considered legally valid.” 8. I am in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the learned appellate court. There is neither any irregularity in law nor on facts. Regardless of the admission, though the same is being merely alleged, since actually it is not an admission. So called admission is being read in abstract to suit the convenience of the appellant. I am in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the learned appellate court. There is neither any irregularity in law nor on facts. Regardless of the admission, though the same is being merely alleged, since actually it is not an admission. So called admission is being read in abstract to suit the convenience of the appellant. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to produce the evidence in affirmation to quantify the bills and based on the usage and not merely because the appellant (plaintiff) was a service provider to the defendant and defendant had received the bills. 9. A perusal of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) reveals that Admissions can be made either in Pleadings (e.g., written statements, plaints) Or Otherwise in writing (e.g., documents, interrogatories, or replies to notices) or even Orally (e.g., during court proceedings or cross-examination). The rule is thus broad enough to cover admissions in various forms. The provision uses the word “may”, indicating that the court has discretionary power to pass a judgment based on admissions. But, it is not mandatory, allowing the court thus to assess whether the admission is clear, unambiguous, and sufficient to resolve the dispute. 10. In the instant case there is neither admission by the respondent qua the documents exhibited and relied by the appellant nor the same have been validly exhibited. Yet, the appellant (BSNL) insists that the respondent’s admission of non- payment of telephone bills justified the trial court’s decree under Order 12 Rule 6. To my mind, the appellate court rightly remanded the case due to procedural lapses (improper exhibition of documents and denial of cross-examination). No doubt, while Order 12 Rule 6 allows judgment on admissions, but the court may still insist on proper evidentiary procedure to ensure fairness, especially when the quantification of the claim (e.g., ?34,872/-) depends on documentary evidence that was not duly presented. 11. In the premise, no grounds to interfere. 12. Dismissed accordingly. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.