P. N. NAG, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) IN this application under Order 12. Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. the plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree on the basis of admission of the suit amount.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 21,76,110. 39 with pendente lite and future interest. According to the plaintiff, the defendants in the written statement in reply to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint, while admitting that loans and advances were availed of by them. stated that there was no mala fide intention on. behalf of the defendants in being irregular in the matter of payment of advances made. It was also stated in these paras that it is only due to financial constraints that the defendants were compelled to be irregular in the matter of accounts. It has been admitted by the defendants that they have every desire to return the correct amount to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has stated that admission/denial of documents carried out by the defurrdants in January, 1990, Balance Confirmation dated 31-7-1981, wherein debts upto 30-6-1981 have been acknowledged by the defendants, has been admitted on behalf of the defendants I to 6. From the above, the plaintiff wants to demonstrae that the defendants have admitted the whole amount and on the basis of the admission by the defendants, the suit deserves to be decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

( 3 ) THE defendants have opposed this application on various grounds. The principal ground taken by them is that the suit involves questions of fact which cannot be disposed of on motion uader Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and without leading evidence in support of the above fact.

( 4 ) VIDE order dated 18th April, 1985 the following issues were framed in the suit :

"1. Was the plaint signed and verified by an authorised person ? OPP 2. Did the defendants sign blank documents or pitted forms without filling m the blanks ? It so. what is its effect ? OPD 3. Are the defendants entitled to any relief in respect of interest under the Usurious Loan Act and lor Punjab relief of Indebtness Act as extended to union Territory of Delhi ? If so what relief OPD 4. To what rate of interest is the plaintiff entitled ? -OPP is the plaintiff not entitled to compound interest or penal interest ? If so to what relief in this respect are the defendants entitled ? OPD 6. To what amount is the plaintiff entitled under the different accounts ? OPP 7. Where the credit facilities availed by and on behalf of Bimla Udyog and not on behalf of Mis. Bindal Construction- (P) Ltd. ? OPD 8. Relief. "learned counsel for the plaintiff, during the course of arguments, has raised the same contentions as have been referred to in this application! inasmuch as the defendants in their written statement in reply to paras 19 and 20 of the plaint have admitted the whole amount and that further Balance Confirmation dated 31-7-1981, wherein debts upto 30-6-1981 have been acknowledged by the defendants, has been admitted by the defendants, and on this basis there is a clear admission on behalf of the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon M/s. P. Roy Company v. Punjab National Bank and Another (1980-18 DLT 318), (l) particularly paras 29 and 33.

( 5 ) I have given carefully consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. However, I regret I am unable to accept the same. In reply to paras 19 and 20 of the plaint in the written statement I do not find any admission on the part of the defendants. It has only been stated in the reply that the defendants have every desire to return the correct amount to the plaintiff. But no where it has been stated that what is the correct amount which is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Furthermore, It has not been shown that the Balance Confirmation date 31-7-1981 has been admitted by the defendants. On the other hand, issue No. 2 has been framed by this court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document