Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is confined to evaluating jurisdictional errors; mere admissions in memorandum lacking clarity do not suffice for liability.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14th January, 2020, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.74,64,107/- along with pendent elite and future interest @ 24% per annum against the respondent-company. The respondent - company though in the written statement denied the liability, however, subsequently, on an application being moved under Order XI Rule 12 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff produced a memorandum of understanding entered into between the company and its directors.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said agreement dated 22nd January, 2018 and supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018, there is a clear-cut admission of the liability of the company qua the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of this categorical admission as appearing in the supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018, the application of the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC should have been allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Order XII Rule 6 CPC and emphasized that the said provision makes it clear that the admission made in the pleadings or otherwise have to be taken into account for exercising the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

6. Learned counsel submits that merely because the respondent has denied their liability in the written statement, the Trial Court should not have declined to exercise its jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Payal Vision Ltd Vs. Radhika Choudhary, (2012) 11 SCC 405, Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (smt) and Anr., (2005) 11 SCC 279.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of these judgments makes it clear that the facts of each case have to be examined and if there is any admission on the part of the respondent which can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, then the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC should be allowed.

9. Learned counsel further submits that as per the scheme of CPC, only petitioner could have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and the Hon'ble court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction is duty bound to ensure that no illegality is committed by the Trial Court.

10. Mr. Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the revision petition.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this court has limited jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. Learned counsel further submits that the bare perusal of Section 115 CPC would make it clear that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only if either the Trial court has exercised the jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law or have exceeded its jurisdiction or has acted illegally or committed material irregularity.

12. Learned counsel has further submitted that even the bare perusal of the Supplementary memorandum of settlement dated 23rd January, 2018 would make it clear that there is no unequivocal admission on the part of the company qua the liability as raised by the plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 570/2016.

13. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.

14. Before proceeding to examine the facts on merit, it is necess