Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 912
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Harish Tandon, J.
Sanjoy Kumar Sett – Petitioner
Versus
Dharamraj Prasad & Another – Respondents
G.A. No. 739 of 2016 with C.S. No. 346 of 2014
Decided On : 13-06-2016
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sutapa Sanyal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Chayan Gupta.
An admission made in a petition under Section 144(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be used for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code if the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unconditional.
Headnote:
ORDER XII RULE 6 - ADMISSION OF FACT - DISTINCTION WITH ORIGINAL SIDE RULES - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER XII RULE 6, CHAPTER XIIIA RULE 1 - SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND INFLUENCES ON COURT'S DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the owner of premises, sued defendants for possession of a servant's quarter they occupied after their employment with the plaintiff's company ended. Plaintiff claimed he permitted defendants to stay in the quarter, while defendants asserted they were accommodated by the company. A dispute arose over whether an admission made by defendants in a petition under Section 144(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code could be used for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court distinguished between Order XII Rule 6 and Chapter XIIIA Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court. It held that Order XII Rule 6 applies when there is a clear admission of facts that make it impossible for the party making the admission to succeed, while Chapter XIIIA Rule 1 applies when the court is satisfied that the defendant has no good defense to the claim on merit. The court found that the admission made by the defendants in the petition under Section 144(2) was clear, unambiguous, and unconditional, and thus sufficient for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6.
Issues: 1. Whether an admission made in a petition under Section 144(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be used for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. Whether the defendants had a good defense to the plaintiff's claim for possession of the servant's quarter.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code allows the court to pass a judgment on admission based on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing. 2. The expression "or otherwise" in Order XII Rule 6 expands its horizon beyond pleadings, allowing the court to consider admissions made in other documents or statements. 3. The admission made by the defendants in the petition under Section 144(2) was clear, unambiguous, and unconditional, and thus sufficient for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for a judgment on admission and ordered the defendants to vacate the servant's quarter within two months.
1. The present controversies invite the Court not only to narrate the scope of the provisions contained in Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure but also a distinction to be drawn between the said provision and the provisions contained in Rule 6 of Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of Calcutta High Court.
2. Before proceeding to address the issue as indicated above, the salient features of facts involved in this case are required to be adumbrated herein below.
3. The plaint case simply proceeds that the plaintiff promoted a company by the name of Globe Forex and Travel Limited with the registered office at 100, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071 and employed various persons including the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the said company. The said premises is owned by an official trustee, Govt. of West Bengal and let out the upper flat, east suite along with two garages, one kitchen and five godowns to be used for servants at a monthly rent which was enhanced from time to time and at the time of filing the suit the plaintiff was paying a rent of Rs. 2662.00 per month according to the English calendar. Though the rent receipt does not indicate the godowns but it was all along used for the purpose of residence of the servants having located at the backside of the said premises. Since, the defendants did not have a place of residence and having employed by the plaintiff in the said company, permitted them to stay in one of such godowns primarily used as servant’s quarter purely on permissive occupation. On 9th April, 2013 the plaintiff sold his controlling block of shares in the said company to one Ramkrishna Forgings Limited who subsequently transferred the registered office of the said company from the said premises to another premises and duly notified the same with the Registrar of Companies.
4. On October 30, 2013 the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the said servant’s quarter as they were no longer in employment of the plaintiff and an assurance was given to him that they would vacate it shortly. Since they failed to honour such assurance a General Diary was lodged with the local police station and subsequently a notice was issued terminating the license which was duly received by the defendants. It is averred in the plaint that the defendants have no right to remain in occupation after the withdrawal of the permission and having failed to do so the present suit is filed not only for recovery of possession but also for mesne profit.
5. After entering appearance, the defendants filed the written statement denying the jural or contractual relationship with the plaintiff. It is a specific stand taken therein that they were accommodated in the said suit premises by the said company on the backside of the said premises in the servant’s quarter which is accessible by a narrow lane of 3 ft. wide. It is further averred that the letter of appointment would discern that they were allowed the house rent allowances but subsequently a procedural was adopted by the company that the house rent allowances would be paid at the first instance but is returned in cash because of such accommodation being provided to them by the company. It is categorically stated that the plaintiff is not a tenant in respect of a portion in their occupation and therefore have no semblance of right, title and interest therein. On a notice terminating the license, the defendant says that such notice is invalid, illegal as they were not permitted to occupy the said servant quarter by the plaintiff but by a company where they are employed.
6. The plaintiff took out an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a judgment on admission as the defendants in a petition under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted that they were inducted by the plaintiff and therefore the subsequent stand that they were inducted by the company in lieu of their employment is concocted, afterthought and have no semblance
