IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
C.K. Surendran S/o Achuthan – Petitioner
Versus
Kunhimoosa S/o Kunhi Mammu – Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 68, 134 of 2023
Decided On : 02-11-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6, Order XXIII Rule 1, Order II Rule 2, Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII, Section 11 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 6, 7, 2(1)(c) - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 11 - Agreement for licence - Recovery of licence fee - C.R.P. is against order dismissing an application for attachment before judgment in that suit - Application submitted for attachment was rejected even without ordering show cause notice to respondent either to furnish security or to show cause and that too, without passing a conditional order of attachment.
Findings of the Court:
It is for recovery of licence fee of a building let out for commercial purpose and being used as such and conducting a commercial business in that building, question as to what actually denotes word “used” as found in Section 2(1)(c) of Act does not arise for consideration - Application submitted for attachment was rejected even without ordering show cause notice to respondent either to furnish security or to show cause and that too, without passing a conditional order of attachment - Trial court ought to have issued show cause notice either to furnish security or to show cause and also by ordering a conditional attachment over property till that time - Order passed by trial court in application submitted for attachment before judgment will stand set aside.
Result: C.R.P. allowed in part.
ORDER :
1. These revision petitions are against the two orders passed by the trial court in a subsequent suit in O.S. No. 61/2021 by the plaintiff. The subject of C.R.P. No. 68/2023 is the order passed rejecting an application to pass a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C by the trial court. C.R.P. No. 134/2023 is against the order dismissing an application for attachment before judgment in that suit.
2. The application submitted by the plaintiff in I.A. No. 1/2023 in O.S. No. 61/2021 is for getting a decree under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. based on the admission in the written statement submitted by the defendant. The suit is admittedly for recovery of licence fee based on agreement for licence. The arrears of licence fee comes to Rs. 3,76,98,040/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand and Forty only). The pleading in paragraph 14 of the written statement admits payment of licence fee upto the month of April, 2020 as per cheque No. 126495 dated 10/8/2020. Further, it is stated that the defendant did not avail the benefit of COVID 19 pandemic as alleged by the plaintiff. He did not have any pleading that the subsequent monthly licence fee was paid or tendered or adjusted otherwise. It is contended that the admission, if any incorporated in paragraph 14 of the written statement is not an unqualified admission, without which no power under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. can be exhausted to pass a decree on admission and took reliance from Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496.
3. The legislative intent by the incorporation of Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. is to avoid unnecessary trial of any suit, wastage of time and speedy disposal of litigation, when there is an admission regarding the liability to the extent of making it possible to pass a decree on such admission. The admission by way of pleading should be clear, unambiguous and must be of the nature and the extent to pass a decree wholly and completely based on such pleading without leaving any scope for any oral or documentary evidence or any clarification, for that purpose, the entire pleading in the written statement should be taken in whole and not in isolation. At the same time, it cannot be insisted invariably in all cases that there should be an unqualified admission or a declaration to that effect by way of pleading or otherwise to pass a decree on admission. The test that can be applied is to find out whether it is permissible or possible to determine conclusively the rights of parties and to adjudicate it without seeking any clarification or evidence. A mere contention that licence fee was paid upto a particular date though admits non-payment of licence fee thereafter would not by itself empower the court to pass a decree on such admission, when the maintainability of the suit was brought under challenge either on account of limitation or any other debarring provision. The jurisdiction that can be exercised in order to pass a decree on admission under Rule 6 of Order XII C.P.C. is imperative and peremptory, but does not call for an unqualified admission invariably in all cases. The admission can be either by way of pleading or by way of documentary evidence or by oral evidence. What is dealt under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. covers both the admission by pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing and it can be exercised at any stage of the suit either on the application of any of the party or on its own motion without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties. The Apex Court had laid down in Karan Singh and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1506 that the admission in the written statement should be taken as a whole and not in part. Further, the jurisdiction that can be exercised under Rule 6 of Order XII C.P.C. has no overriding effect over the other provisions of law including the question of res judicata, bar of limitation, bar of any other provision such as Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C. Orde
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another
Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar
Karan Singh and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others
Raju K. Thomas and Another vs. Union of India
Steel Complex Ltd. vs. K.G. Subramania Iyer
Sri Venkataramana Devaru and Others vs. State of Mysore and Others
SupremeToday
The court established that disputes arising from license agreements for properties used exclusively for trade qualify as commercial disputes under the CC Act.
The court confirmed the trial court's ruling that the counter-claim is a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing the importance of clear admissions in legal proceedings.
The court confirmed that the counter-claim is a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing the need for clear admissions for invoking judgment on admissions.
Revisional applications - Scope of assumption of jurisdiction by Commercial Court - No question of bar to revisions against interlocutory orders passed by Commercial Courts Act arises in present case....
A dispute arising from an agreement to sell immovable property used for trade is a commercial dispute, mandating resolution in a Commercial Court, as clarified by statutory definitions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.