Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Patel J.N., J.
Western Coalfields Ltd. .... Appellant.
Versus
Swati Industries.... Respondent.
Appeal Against Order No. 40 of 1997, decided on 11-2-2003.
Advocates appeared :
S.C. Mehadia, for appellant.
Khajanchi, for respondent.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 and 115 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XII, Rule 6 - Judgment in admission - Pleadings - To be read as whole - Suit claim amount due to plaintiff appropriated against another claim under contract by defendant - Qualified admission given by defendant - To be read as a whole - Defendant not admitted suit claim to extent of that amount - Admission not operates as estoppel against defendant - Decree passed under Order XII, Rule 6 of Code against defendant for said amount - Not sustainable - Set-aside. - If one examines the pleadings particularly para 9 of the written statement which is in reply to para 6-D of the plaint and paras 20 and 21 of the specific pleadings the admissions given by the defendant is not absolute but it is conditional and it has been specifically stated that in terms of another contract the said amount is already appropriated. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances. It cannot be said that there is an unqualified admission on the part of the defendant which would invite a decree against it for the said amount. The nature of admission made by the defendant cannot be held to be conclusive so as to invite an order under Rule 6 of Order XII, CPC. The nature of admission is such that it is only a statement of the case upon which the defendant intended to rely and would not operate as an estoppel against him as understood under Section 115 of the Evidence Act. As this admission made by the defendant is qualified, it is to be read as a whole while considering whether a decree can be passed against the defendant on such admission. As the admission is qualified and it is specifically pleaded that the said amount has been appropriated against another claim under contract between the parties the Court should not have proceeded to pass the impugned order which would be discretionary. (Dudhnath Pandey v. Sureshchandra Bhattasalli, AIR 1986 SC 1509). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the Court ought not to have passed the impugned order in the manner it has directed the defendant to deposit the amount in Court with a condition that on failure to deposit, the defendant will be liable to pay the interest on the said amount which was to be determined.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XII, Rule 6 - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 58 and 115 - Judgment on admission - Admissions in pleading cannot be dissected - Admission made by defendant in written statement is conditional - Qualified admission - Court not to pass impugned order on such admission - Impugned order quashed and set-aside. - In the matter of judgment on admission, general rule is that the pleadings are to be read as a whole admission is pleadings cannot be dissected. The Court is vested with jurisdiction to pass a decree on admission on the strength of the principle laid down under Section 58 of the Evidence Act that admitted facts need not be proved and as such admissions can be considered as substantive evidence on which a decree can be passed.
If one examines the pleadings particularly para 9 of the written statement which is in reply to para 6-D of the plaint and paras 20 and 21 of the specific pleadings, the admissions given by the defendant is not absolute but it is conditional and it has been specifically stated that in terms of another contract the said amount is already appropriated. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances it cannot be said that there is an unqualified admission on the part of the defendant which would invite a decree against it for the said amount. The nature of admission made by the defendant cannot be held to be conclusive so as to invite an order under Rule 6 of Order XII of the CPC. The nature of admission is such that it is only a statement of the case upon which the defendant intended to rely and would not operate as an estoppel against him as understood under Section 115 of the Evidence Act. As this admission made by the defendant is qualified, it is to be read as a whole while considering whether a decree can be passed against the defendant on such admission. As the admission is qualified and it is specifically pleaded that the said amount has been appropriated against another claim under contract between the parties the Court should not have proceeded to pass the impugned order which would be discretionary
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -Order XII, Rule 6 - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 68 and 115 - Judgment on admission - Pleadings - Not to be dissected - To be read as whole - Defendant specifically pleaded that claimed amount due to plaintiff appropriated against another claim under contract between parties - Admission given by defendant is qualified - To be read as a whole - Plaintiffs suit claim not admitted by defendant to extent of that amount - Not operate as estoppel against defendant - Decree passed under Order XII, Rule 6 of Code against defendant for said amount liable to be quashed.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XII, Rule 6 - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 58 and 115 - Judgment on admission - Admissions in pleading cannot be dissected - Admission made by defendant in written statement is conditional - Qualified admission - Court not to pass impugned order on such admission - Impugned order quashed and set-aside. - In the matter of judgment on admission, general rule is that the pleadings are to be read as a whole admission is pleadings cannot be dissected. The Court is vested with jurisdiction to pass a decree on admission on the strength of the principle laid down under Section 58 of the Evidence Act that admitted facts need not be proved and as such admissions can be considered as substantive evidence on which a decree can be passed.
If one examines the pleadings particularly para 9 of the written statement which is in reply to para 6-D of the plaint and paras 20 and 21 of the specific pleadings, the admissions given by the defendant is not absolute but it is conditional and it has been specifically stated that in terms of another contract the said amount is already appropriated. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances it cannot be said that there is an unqualified admission on the part of the defendant which would invite a decree against it for the said amount. The nature of admission made by the defendant cannot be held to be conclusive so as to invite an order under Rule 6 of Order XII of the CPC. The nature of admission is such that it is only a statement of the case upon which the defendant intended to rely and would not operate as an estoppel against him as understood under Section 115 of the Evidence Act. As this admission made by the defendant is qualified, it is to be read as a whole while considering whether a decree can be passed against the defendant on such admission. As the admission is qualified and it is specifically pleaded that the said amount has been appropriated against another claim under contract between the parties the Court should not have proceeded to pass the impugned order which would be discretionary
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -Order XII, Rule 6 - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 68 and 115 - Judgment on admission - Pleadings - Not to be dissected - To be read as whole - Defendant specifically pleaded that claimed amount due to plaintiff appropriated against another claim under contract between parties - Admission given by defendant is qualified - To be read as a whole - Plaintiffs suit claim not admitted by defendant to extent of that amount - Not operate as estoppel against defendant - Decree passed under Order XII, Rule 6 of Code against defendant for said amount liable to be quashed.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 58 and 115 - See Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XII, Rule 6.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 68 and 115 - See Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XII, Rule 5.
2. The appellant-original defendant has impugned the order dated 3-4-1997 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, directing the appellant-original defendant to pay Rs. 5,90,686.31 paise by deducting the same and in case of its failure to deposit the same within reasonable time, same amount is ordered to carry interest which is to be determined. The Court also observed that the application is decided without prejudiced to the rights of the parties while deciding the remaining claim in the present suit. This order came to be passed on the application made by the respondent-original plaintiff seeking direction against the appellant-original defendant to deposit the said amount on the strength of the admission in the written statement filed in reply to the claim of the respondent-original plaintiff. In reply to para 60 of the plaint, the appellant-original defendant has contended as under :
"It is denied that the total value of the work executed by the plaintiff comes to Rs. 11,74,816.42 ps. as alleged. The details submitted in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint are also denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff has executed the work of 226.004 Metric Tonne and accordingly he has carried out the work of Rs. 5,90,686.31 ps. only, which is based on the rate submitted by the plaintiff itself for the said work and which was accepted by the defendant for execution and carrying out the work."
Thereafter, in specific pleadings also, same thing was reiterated, but it was also specified that the said amount due to the plaintiff i.e. Rs. 5,90,686.31 paise against the said work, was adjusted towards the recovery in relation to the contract work awarded to the plaintiff under an Agreement No. 20/90-91 dated 19-3-91. On the basis of this admission, that the plaintiff sought such an order. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's suit claim to the extent of Rs. 5,90,686.31 paise has been admitted by the defendant in his written statement and as such taking into consideration Order 39, Rule 10 read with Order 12, Rule 6, said claim is decreed against the defendant, who is thus saddled with the liability to pay the aforesaid amount and that is how the impugned order came to be passed.
3. Order 12, Rule 6 C.P.C. reads as under :--
"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. In the matter of judgment on admission, general rule is that the pleadings are to be read as a whole admissions in pleadings cannot be dissected. The Court is vested with jurisdiction to pass a decree on admission on the strength of the principle laid down under section 58 of the Evidence Act that admitted facts need not be proved and as such admissions can be considered as substantive evidence on which a decree can be passed.
5. If one examines the pleadings particularly para 9 of the written statement which is in reply to para 6-D of the plaint, and paras 20 and 21 of the specific pleadings, the admissions given by the defendant is not absolute, but it is conditional and it has been specifically stated that in terms of another contract, the said amount is already appropriated. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is an unqualified admission on the part of the defendant which would invite a decree against it for the said amount. The nature of admission made by the defendant cannot be he
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
