ORDER :

P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. C.O.S. No. 4 of 2016 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, was filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of US$ 202,596.24 (INR 1,37,76,544.30) along with interest of US$ 64,473 (INR 43,84,164/-) and for further interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. I.A. No. 38 of 2018 was filed in the said suit by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC to pass a decree on the strength of the admissions made by the respondent-defendant. By order dated 27.03.2018, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court by way of this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Perusal of the order under revision demonstrates that the trial Court was of the opinion that as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, admissions of fact had to be made in the pleadings, as is clear from its observation that even a careful perusal of the written statement did not reveal any admission. The trial Court further observed that the correspondence between the parties could not be relied upon, as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and that the admissions should be either in the pleadings or in the oral evidence or writing by the other side. The trial Court went on to state that neither in the e-mails nor in the reply notice, the respondent-defendant had specifically admitted the due amount and in the absence of a particular admission of a certain amount being due by the respondent-defendant and as there was no such pleading in the written statement, the trial Court concluded that the application was devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed it.

3. Heard Mr. R. Raghunandan, learned senior counsel representing Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, and Mr. V. Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant.

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC reads as under:

'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. The language of the provision makes it clear that admissions need not be made only in writing in the pleadings as such admissions could be made, either orally or in writing, in the pleading or otherwise. In this regard, reference may be made to the observations of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Vijaya Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura (2007) 142 DLT 483 (DB). Summarising that the legal position in relation to Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable the Court to pronounce judgment on admissions when such admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get a decree, the Delhi High Court categorically held that such admissions could be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely, in documents, correspondence etc., and such admissions could be oral or in writing and could even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. Applying this principle, a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court in Deepali Designs & Exhibits Private Ltd. v. Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium 2017 SCC OnLine Delhi 9174 relied on an e-mail along with an attachment thereto, containing a clear admission, and passed a decree on the strength of such admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

5. In Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381, the Supreme Court observed that the Court can pass a judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admissions made by the defendant