The discretionary nature of the power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and the need for clear and unequivocal admissions of liability justifying a decree on admission.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

C.M. APPL. 5048/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. 27/2023 & CM APPL. 5047/2023

3. Present revision petition has been filed laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Trial Court in CS DJ/122/2016 7551/16, whereby application filed by the Plaintiff before the Trial Court under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admission has been dismissed. The Petitioner before this Court is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court and Respondent is the Defendant and parties are referred hereinafter by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4. Pithily put, case of the Plaintiff before the Trial Court is that a commercial transaction was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that the transactions between the parties were not limited only to the Defendant before the Trial Court but also extended to its sister concern namely, M/s Blessings Advertising Pvt. Ltd. The Defendant Company issued various purchase orders on 19.11.2013 in favour of the Plaintiff and the work was executed as required. On 01.09.2014, a Credit Balance Outstanding was issued by the Director of the Defendant Company as well as by M/s Blessings Advertising Pvt. Ltd, for a total amount of Rs.35,31,446/- and this was a clear acknowledgement and admission of the outstanding liabilities by the Defendant. Plaintiff accepted a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- as token money out of the outstanding dues payable by the Defendant.

5. It is the case of the Plaintiff that based on the said undertaking dated 01.09.2014, Plaintiff filed a winding up petition against the parent company i.e. M/s Blessings Advertising Pvt. Ltd. in this Court, which was allowed by an order dated 12.04.2018. An appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is further claimed that the Plaintiff also filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,93,920/- on 10.02.2016 against the Defendant in another Court premised on the same undertaking dated 01.09.2014. Since the Defendant allegedly acknowledged its liability to pay, Plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, to which reply was filed by the Defendant and by the impugned order, the application has been dismissed by the Trial Court, which according to the Plaintiff is an erroneous order and deserves to be set aside.

6. While the Defendant was not available for arguments, the Trial Court relied upon the reply filed by Defendant to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and decided the application. The stand of the Defendant in response to the application is that after the disputes arose between the parties, the Director Mr. Sanjiv Nayyar, who had allegedly given an undertaking, resigned from the post of Directorship of the Defendant Company. In reply, it is also stated that there was collusion between the Plaintiff and erstwhile Director Mr. Nayyar and that the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was actually paid as full and final amount to the Plaintiff albeit the goods supplied by the Plaintiff were neither of the quantity as ordered nor of the required quality. It is also the stand of the Defendant that prior to the undertaking dated 01.09.2014, various e-mails were sent to the Plaintiff apprising it of the poor quality of goods supplied by the Plaintiff.

7. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, passed the following order:

"5. The main emphasis of the plaintiff has been on the acknowledgement/undertaking dated 01.09.2014 which is given by the Director of the defendant company to the plaintiff. This letter and its execution by the Director has been denied by defendant company. Further it is specifically pleaded by defendant company repeatedly in their written statement that several e-mails were written by defendant to the plaintiff regarding the sub-standard goods but they were not replied by the plaintiff. Copies of these e-mails have been placed on record. Plaintif