JUDGMENT

REVIEW PET. 20/2021 in CS(OS) 3148/2015.

1. The defendant in the captioned suit seeks review of a judgment dated 21.10.2019, by which I.A. 1385/2017 filed by the plaintiff under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter, "CPC"], read with Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, was allowed, and the suit was consequently decreed.

Background:

2. By the judgment under review, the submissions of the plaintiff, both under Order XIII-A of the CPC, and Order XII Rule 6 thereof were accepted.

3. As far as summary judgment is concerned, a decree was passed in the following terms:

"23. Consequently, the plaintiff is granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC in the following sums:

a) Rs.87,18,849.65/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 24.04.2015 (date of cancellation of PC 205) until 29.09.2015 (date of filing of the suit).

b) Rs.56,07,504.53/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 22.05.2015 (date of cancellation of PO 213) to 29.09.2015 (date of filing of the suit).

c) pendente lite interest on the above amount @ 9% per annum.

d) Further interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree until realization."

4. The plaintiff's alternative claim under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was also adjudicated for the sake of completeness, in the following terms:

"24. Although, in view of the above, it is unnecessary to deal with the plaintiff's case for decree upon admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, for the sake of completeness, I record that even under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the sums admitted by the defendant in the account statements dated 13.05.2015 and 15.06.2015, namely USD 1,80,037.30 and USD 57,790,93 respectively. The admissions in the said two statements of accounts, to the extent above, are unequivocal and unambiguous. The defendant's subsequent attempts to wriggle out of its admitted liability are unsupportable. A clear and unequivocal admission in inter parties correspondence entitles the plaintiff to, a decree, in terms of the judgments of Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC, 120 (paragraph 12) and in Karam Kapahi Lai Chand Public Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753, (paragraph 37). The Supreme Court has emphasised the grant of judgment upon admission in order to expedite proceedings where factual issues are not in dispute.

25. I therefore hold that, insofar as decree upon admission is concerned, the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree in the rupee equivalent of the sum of USD 87,828.30 (after adjustment of sum of. USD 1,50,000 paid by the defendant). Plaintiff will also be entitled to interest 9% per annum pendente lite until realisation."

5. The operative directions are contained in paragraph 26 of the judgment under review, which reads as follows:

"26. In the facts and circumstances, the application is allowed. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree in terms of paragraph 23 hereinabove. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs, assessed at Rs.2,00,000/- (including Rs.1,55,465.87 paid as court fee)."

6. The defendant/review petitioner has carried the matter in appeal in RFA(OS) 20/2020, which remains pending. It is the defendant's case that the present review petition has been filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Division Bench vide order dated 13.10.2020, reproduced below:

"1. This Regular First Appeal impugns the judgment dated 21st October, 2019 of the Single Judge of this Court in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for recovery of money.

2. The suit claim was in the sum of Rs.1,55,46,586.62. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff appearing on advance notice, on enquiry informs that the suit was instituted on or before 8th October, 2015 i.e. prior to the coming into force of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on 31st December, 2015 and was given the nomenclature of an 'Ordinary Suit'. It is further informed that even