JUDGMENT :

(Harish Tandon, J.)

1. Both the appeal and the cross objection are filed by the respective parties assailing a common judgment dated 3rd November, 2022 by which an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has held that there is a clear admission on the part of the applicant with regard to a sum of Rs.16,01,89,691/- and Rs.12,89,18,790/- and further directed to pay an interest at the rate of 18% from 01.10.2020 to 15.4.2022 within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

3. At the very outset we must record that the findings rendered in the impugned order espounding the law relating to the provisions contained under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sought to be challenged by the plaintiffs/respondents treating the same to be erroneous which also perceived by us to be so. We are unable to comprehend the proposition of law laid down in the impugned judgment and arriving at the conclusion, which in our opinion are mutually destructive.

4. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure bestows power upon the Court to pass a judgment on admission provided such admission is found in pleading or otherwise either oral or in writing, either on its own motion or on an application taken out by any party thereto without waiting for determination for any other questions involved in the said litigation. The law enunciated in this regard is explicit to the extent that mere admission does not invite the Court to pass a judgment thereupon unless such admission is clear unequivocal, explicit and unconditional. The expressions ‘may’ and ‘make such order’ convey a legislative intent that such conferment of power upon the Court is discretionary and depend upon the facts of the given case. It is the ardent duty of the Court to arrive at the definite conclusion that the admission made in the pleading or otherwise is clear and unequivocal and does not require any roving enquiry thereupon. The moment the admission is unequivocal and unconditional, the Court may exercise such power and pass a judgment on admission without waiting or investing time for trial. The legislative intent underlying incorporation of Order XII Rule 6 can be visualized from the language employed therein that an immediate relief is granted to the party to the proceedings provided an admission is made by the other side in relation to the issues involved therein either in its entirety or partially. There is no impediment on the part of the Court to pass a judgment on admission by granting the part decree or relegating the parties to go for trial in respect of other issues which appears to the Court contentious.

5. Series of judgments relied upon the respective parties unequivocally and uniformly laid down the proposition of law that every admission may not invite the Court to pass a judgment on admission but such admission which is clear unequivocal and unconditional and does not require any trial to go on, the Court may pass a judgment on admission. The earliest judgment in this regard can be traced in relation to ‘Birendra Nath Mallick vs. Brahma Brata Roy’ reported in MANU/WB/0224/1946 where the Calcutta High Court have enunciated a proposition that while embarking the journey to ascertain the clear admission made by the parties, it is not permissible for the litigant to split the admission or dissect from the context and pass a judgment on admission in relation to a part thereof ignoring the other portions of the admission in the following :

“From what has been said above it is more than reasonably clear that the plaintiff is seeking to split the admission made by the Defendant No.2, so as to take advantage of one part of it and to repudiate the other part. The admission of this Defendant in so far as it is an admission of the Plaintiff’s claim in the suit is a strictly conditional one. The Defendant No.2 is saying that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount of R