Back
Delhi High Court
SWATANTER KUMAR,S. L. BHAYANA
Raj Kumar Chawla - Appellant
Versus
Lucas Indian Services - Respondent
L. A. A. No. 130 of 2004
Decided On : 04/27/2006
Code of Civil Procedure - The court examines the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the grant of a decree based on admission. The court emphasizes that an admission must be unambiguous, clear, and unconditional. The court also discusses the need for a decree on admission to be exercised judicially and the discretionary power of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of money for goods supplied. The defendant raised objections and disputed the liability. The case was at the stage of admission and denial of documents. The trial court passed a decree based on admission of the defendant in certain letters. The appellant challenges the decree on the grounds that there was no unambiguous admission and the defendant should have been given an opportunity to prove their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court examines the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the grant of a decree based on admission. The court emphasizes that an admission must be unambiguous, clear, and unconditional. The court also discusses the need for a decree on admission to be exercised judicially and the discretionary power of the court. The court cites precedents to support its interpretation of the provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court sets aside the decree passed by the trial court, stating that there was no unambiguous admission by the defendant and that the case requires further determination by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court emphasizes the importance of clear and specific admissions before passing a decree on admission.
Result: The trial court's judgment and decree are set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the law. Each party is to bear their own costs.
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. :- The present appeal under Section 96 r/w Order 41, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is directed against the judgement and decree dated 29th
October, 2003. M/s. Lucas Indian Services, the plaintiff, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,61,186.74/- along with interest. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money for the goods supplied. This suit was contested by the defendant who had raised certain preliminary objections as well as had contested the claim on merits.
2. The defendants not only disputed the liability but even gave detailed facts in regard to the payments made to the plaintiff in paragraph 18 to 22 of the written statement. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- from the plaintiff for the goods which they had returned and this according to them had been accepted by the plaintiff in response to the letter dated 12th July, 1999 and 29th June, 2000. In other words, serious controversies had been raised relatable to various documents and the case was at the stage of admission and denial of documents and even issues had not been framed in the suit.
3. In the written statement the defendants claimed that they had specifically denied its liability and the plea taken was not vague. They had raised dispute with regard to quantum and quality of the goods alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. They had also filed documents during the pendency of the suit. On 29th October, 2003 the case was fixed for admission/denial of documents on which date the admission/denial of the documents of the defendant was completed. Plaintiff had not filed original documents and resultantly his documents could not be admitted or denied and the case was adjourned for that purpose for 21st November, 2003. On that very date, the application of the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 was taken up for hearing and while referring to para 15 of the plaint and the letter of the defendant sent to the plaintiff dated 12th July, 1999 being ackowledgment and admission of the debt, the trial Court passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,90,949/- and for the remaining amount the suit was ordered to be dismissed. The trial Court held as under :
"However, today the defendants have placed on record a letter dated 22-9-2000 written by the plaintiff to them and have also filed letter dated 23-9-2000 purporting to be written by them to the chairman of the plaintiff company. Vide letter dated 22-9-2000 the general manager of the plaintiff company referred to a meeting with defendant No. 2 on Sept. 2, 2000. The letter indicates that in the meeting the defendant-company had agreed to take back old material worth Rs. 154949/- and defendant No. 2 had agreed to release the payment of Rs. 66415/-. Vide letter dated 23-9-2000 purporting to have been sent to the chairman of the plaintiff-company, defendant No. 2 stated that the outstanding towards him which was Rs. 3.97 lacs prior to the meeting with him had come down to Rs. 0.36 lacs with out any payment by him. However, even in this letter, the defendant No. 2 did not dispute his liability to return old material worth Rs. 154949/-. Thus, vide this letter also defendant No. 2 acknowledged his liability to pay Rs. 0.36 lacs to the plaintiff-company, pursuant his meeting with the chairman of the plaintiff-company . If the letter referred in the plaint as well as the letters filed today by the defendants are read together, the defendants admits liability to pay at least Rs. 0.36 lacs to the plaintiff-company and were also required to return old material worth Rs. 154949/-. In the written statement, the defendants have not claimed that the plaintiff-company had refused to accept goods worth Rs. 154949/- when tendered by them. Admittedly, the defendant had sought amendment of the W. S. in order to plead certain claims which were in the nature of counter-claims. As he was not ready to pa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
