A court has the discretion to pass a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, but the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal. Where serious questions of law are raised, the court may refuse to exercise its discretion in favor of the plaintiff.

( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose of I. A. No. 177 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 rule 6 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. with a request that in so far as the defendant has made an admission in a letter dated 25th August, 1985 that a sum of Rs. 5,98,0001- was due to the plaintiff from the defendant a decree be passed for this amount in favour of the plaintiff without waiting for the final out-come of the suit. The application is opposed obehalf of the defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the application and its reply as also the plaint and the written statement and documents placed on record and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to. the following findings :

( 2 ) THE contention of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 firm has been maintaining its accounts and a letter dated 25th August, 1985 now Ex. P. 4 was written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff requesting the plaintiff to transfer the then existing outstanding loan against the defendant along with interest to the defendants working Capital Term Loan Account. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that along therewith the defendant had submitted a balance sheet as on 31st March, 1985 and in the said balance sheet the defendant had admitted that a sum of Rs. 5,98,0001- was due as on that date to the plaintiff from the defendant and as such it is submitted that in view of the said admission a decree for this amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that there are as many as five defendants and all of them are contesting the suit on various grounds both legal and factual and the defendants have raised as many as five preliminary ob- jections as well in their written statement. It is also urged that the plaintiff was placing wrong construction on Ex. P. 4 which otherwise is admitted to have been written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. It has further been submitted by the defendants that the said letter has not been signed, or written by all the defendants and the balance sheet referred to therein is wrong, vague, ambiguous and denied and in these circumstances it has been submitted that the application should be dismissed.

( 4 ) A perusal of letter Ex. P. 4 shows that this letter as such does not contain any admission whatsoever. There is nothing to suggest in this letter that any of the defendant has made any admission of the claim of the plaintiff. However, when this letter is considered with reference to a balance sheet and profit and loss account referred to therein, then it can be said that the defendant has made the request referred to above to the plaintiff but would that by itself be enough to accept that the defendant has made admission of the claim of the plaintiff ? In this behalf it would be necessary to refer to the copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account which have been placed on record along with letter Ex. P. 4. In the said "provisional balance sheet as on 31-3-1985" a sum of Rs. 5,98,367. 01 has been shown as secured loan in favour of State Bank of India against the defendant. The question is whether this is sufficient admission within the meaning of Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code so as to entitle the plaintiff to get a decree straightaway.

( 5 ) IN this suit issues have already been framed and as many as seven issues have been framed and the said issues are as follows :-

"1. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified and the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person ?

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendants 1, 3 and 5, as alleged in the preliminary objection No. 1 ?

3. Whether the plaintiff obtained the signatures of defendents 2 and 4 on blank forms and papers ? If so, to what effect ?

4. Whether the p