Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Parimi Gopal – Petitioner
Versus
Rachamalla Koti Reddy – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2333 of 2022
Decided On : 19-07-2023
Admission - Recovery of Money - Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC - Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act - Partial Decree - Discretionary Power of Court - Judgment on Admission - [Rs.16,32,000] - [Recovery of Money] - [Order XII Rule 6, Section 151 CPC] - The court discussed the discretionary power of the court to pass judgment on admission, the requirement for clear and categorical admission, and the possibility of a partial decree based on admission. The court highlighted the need for the admission to be clear and conclusive, and the discretion of the court to pass judgment based on admission. The judgment emphasized the distinct nature of admitted and disputed liabilities and the need for judicious exercise of discretion by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money and interest on a loan based on a mortgage deed. The defendant admitted to the liability to pay the principal amount with interest from a certain date but disputed the interest amount claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a petition under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC for a judgment based on the defendant's admissions. The trial court dismissed the petition, leading to the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion in dismissing the petition based on the defendant's admissions. It emphasized the distinct nature of admitted and disputed liabilities and the possibility of a partial decree based on admission. The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the discretionary power of the court to pass judgment on admission, the requirement for clear and categorical admission, and the possibility of a partial decree based on admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear and categorical admission for passing judgment on admission, the discretionary power of the court, and the distinct nature of admitted and disputed liabilities. It highlighted the requirement for judicious exercise of discretion by the trial court.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the order of the trial court was set aside. The petition under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
ORDER :
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.09.2022 dismissing the petition in I.A.No. 303 of 2021 in O.S.No. 47 of 2021 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff with a prayer to pass judgment for Rs.16,32,000/-, based on admissions made by defendant in his written statement.
2. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money and interest on the principal amount of the loan based on a mortgage deed dated 13.05.2015. The defendant filed written statement stating that at Para No. 9 and 13 as follows:
13. As stated above the defendant has to pay the principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest from April, 2020 and thus the suit claim is false and baseless.”
3. Basing on the above averments in the written statement, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 303 of 2021 under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC to pass a judgment for Rs.16,32,000/- based on such admissions.
4. The defendant did not file any counter and as such, the Court closed the opportunity of filing counter on 22.06.2022. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the defendant specifically alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff failed to deduct the payments made by him towards the interest amount and claimed excessive amount in the suit and since the plaintiff did not choose to file any rejoinder to the written statement nor did come forward to forego the disputed amount of interest. It further held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC shall be read along with Order XII Rule 5 proviso CPC and therefore, notwithstanding the admission made by the defendant in the pleading, the Court may require proof of the facts pleaded in the plaint. It is further held that such observation in consonance with proviso of Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act as well. As the petition was dismissed, the plaintiff filed this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that when there is a clear and categorical admission by the defendant about the liability to pay the principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at the agreed rate specified by the plaintiff from April, 2020, the trial Court ought to have decreed the principal amount with the interest at the rate of 24% Per Annum from April, 2020 till November, 2021 which comes to Rs.4,32,000/- and making the total sum of Rs.16,32,000/- inclusive of both the principal amount and the interest so calculated.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that there cannot be a partial decree based on the so called admission and also that the admission cannot be read in isolation, but it must be read in the light of the other part of the averments in the written statement that the plaintiff mischievously claimed interest before April, 2020 which was already paid and the same requires adjudication during the trial. He further submitted that the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and not mandatory and therefore, since the trial Court has exercised his discretion judiciously and there is no error in its exercise, it cannot be challenged in the revision. He further submitted that the property of defendant mortgaged is one of two portions of house
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to pass judgment on admission, the requirement for clear and categorical admission, and the possibility of a p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to pass a preliminary decree based on admissions and the requirement for parties to disclose the pendency of any appeal....
For a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and unconditional; evasive denials do not qualify.
Admissions in civil suits must be clear and unequivocal; statements from unrelated criminal proceedings do not satisfy this standard for summary judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC must be clear and unambiguous to justify a judgment without trial; ambiguous denials necessitate a full trial.
The discretionary nature of the power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and the need for clear and unequivocal admissions of liability justifying a decree on admission.
A decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC requires clear, unconditional admissions of fact, which were absent in this case.
The admission by the landlords did not confer tenancy rights only upon the Petitioner, but also upon his mother and siblings. Decreeing the suit in favor of the Petitioner alone would deny the rights....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
