The court emphasized the need for proper procedural compliance in evidentiary matters when considering admissions in a claim, asserting that admissions alone, if not supported by valid evidence, do not justify summary judgment.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. The instant appeal is against an order dated 17.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Appeal No.300/2017, vide which judgment & decree dated 03.03.2017 of trial court was set-aside and suit has been remanded to the learned trial court.

2. Brief facts first. The appellant - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), filed a suit for recovery of ₹34,872/- against the respondent-Rajesh Gehlot, who had obtained three telephone connections. BSNL filed the suit on 01.10.2000 alleging unpaid telephone bills for services availed by the respondent.

2.1 In the written statement, evidence, and cross-examination, the respondent admitted that the bills were received but disputed the liability. No payment was thus made against them. However, based on admission qua receipts of bills, the learned trial court decreed the suit on 03.03.2017 in favour of the appellant, awarding ₹34,872/- with 9% annual interest from the date of filing until realization.

2.2 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the respondent consumer filed an appeal. Learned appellate court, vide its order dated 17.05.2023, accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Hence, the instant appeal by BSNL.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the Appellate Court’s remand order, arguing that it erroneously overlooked the respondent’s clear admission of non-payment, which forms the basis of the recovery suit. The admission, supported by oral and documentary evidence, including the defendant’s Written Statement, cross-examination, and exhibits (1 to 19), is sufficient to sustain the claim without need for remand. In support thereof he cites the Apex Court’s ruling in Karam Kapahi & Others vs. M/s Lal Chand Public Charitable & Another (2010) 4 SCC 753 , which states that admissions—whether in pleadings, documents, or interrogatories—do not require independent proof unless directed by the court, particularly in commercial disputes like non-payment of bills. He submits that The suit involves unpaid bills for three telephone connections, with the defendant admitting non- payment. The trial court’s findings, based on unchallenged testimony (PW-2) and cross-examined testimony (PW-1), along with documentary evidence, firmly establish the claim. He argues that the remand serves no purpose, as it is unlikely to alter the trial court’s conclusion, and thus urges that the instant appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, respondent (appears in person) supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of the instant appeal.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file along with the documents therewith.

6. The learned trial court framed following issues, translation of the which is as below :-

(1). As per the facts stated in para number 3 of the plaint, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ₹34,872/- as outstanding amount along with due interest from the defendant?"

--- Responsibility of the plaintiff

(2). Relief?"

7. Reference first may be had to the impugned appellate order dated 17.05.2023, particularly, para 45 thereof, translation of which reads as under :-

“45. This Court agrees with the argument raised by the appellant in the memo of appeal, because the documents that were considered and formed the basis of the impugned judgment were not exhibited before the court in accordance with the law. Witness PW-2 Bhanwarlal did exhibit all these documents before the court, but the defendant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witness Bhanwarlal. Although the defendant did cross-examine witness PW-1 O.P. Chouhan, the documents marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-20 we