( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code, seeking a partial decree op the basis of admissions said to be made by the defendant No. 1 in its written statement.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the averments regarding admissions made by defendant No. 1 in its written statement to the following effect:-

"para 3 The answering defendant cannot be held liable for the acts of omission or commission by or on behalf of defendant No. 2 as also specifically stated in para 18 of Dealership Agreement. The defendant No. 2 used to book the vehicles and accept the payment from the customers. The answering defendant in lieu of the payment received by it from the defendant no. 2 delivered vehicles to defendant No. 2 and the invoices were also raised in the name of defendant No. 2. Para 7 - In so far as the payment of price to the dealer for the booking of vehicle is concerned, it is submitted that the customer makes the payment to the dealer by way of demand draft in favour of this defendant - Para 9 - On termination of the dealership of the defendant no. 2, all pending booking of defendant no. 2. were transferred to another authorised dealer namely M/s. Vikas Motors, New Delhi and the said authorised dealer arranged the delivery of vehicle on the basis of list of customers supplied by the defendant No. 2. Para 11 - Against the 32 vehicles indicated in (a) to (c) above, M/s. Vikas Motors Limited has delivered 18 Maruti cars to the plaintiff on termination of dealership of the defendant No. 2. Para 11 - Accordingly, in terms of prorata allotment of vehicles proportionate. to the funds available in the vehicle purchase account of the defendant No. 2, the plaintiff was offered delivery of 8 vehicles subject to the condition that the plaintiff would not raise any separate claim for delivery of remaining 6 vehicles. "

( 3 ) IN so far as Para 3 of the above written statement is concerned, the plaintiff s plea is that averment made therein amount to an admission of the liability to deliver cars and the mere statement that the cars have been handed over to the second defendant cannot absolve the defendant No. 1 of its liability. The above extracted terms of Para 3 of the written statement do not justify the plea of the plaintiff as the pleading is that defendant No. 2 booked the vehicles and accepted the payments from the customers and the defendant No. 1 delivered the vehicles to defendant No. 2 in lieu of the payments received by it from defendant No. 2. The plea in the written statement does not justify the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 has admitted its liability to deliver the vehicles.

( 4 ) INSOFAR as the Para 7 of the above written statement is concerned, the plea of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1 in Para 7 of the written statement has admitted that Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Anr. the payments were made by the plaintiff directly into the accounts of the first defendant by demand drafts. What has been pleaded in the written statement does not justify this plea as the pleading in the Para 7 of the written statement is that the dealer for a booking of a vehicle receives the payments by way of demand draft in favour of the defendant No. 1. This pleading does not justify the claim of the plaintiff that this is an admission that payments were made by the plaintiff directly into the accounts of the first defendant by demand draft.

( 5 ) IN so far as Para 9 of the written statement is concerned it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the said Para contains an admission on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 1 had a liability to deliver the cars which had been paid for and booked by the plaintiff. Para 9, however, merely states that upon termination of the dealership of defendant No. 2, all pending bookings of defendant No. 2 were transferred to another dealer M/s Vikas