Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Apple Valley Developers and others - Plaintiffs
Versus
Coastal Projects Ltd. and others - Defendants
C.S. No. 44 of 2015 a/w OMP No. 46 of 2016
Decided On : 12-5-2016
For the Plaintiffs :Mr. R. L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lall and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates.
For the Defendants :Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate.
The main legal principle established is that under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, when there are clear admissions of facts and the defendant fails to provide specific denials, the court may decree the suit based on the admissions.
Headnote:
Admissions - Decreeing the Suit - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 12 Rule 6
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for decreeing the suit. The defendants admitted crucial averments set forth by the plaintiffs in their written statement. The defendants raised preliminary objections, alleging that the application was devoid of merit and based on frivolous grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants did not provide specific denials to the plaintiffs' claims, leading to constructive admission of the facts. The court held that the defendants had no defense and should have raised a counter claim if aggrieved by the plaintiffs' conduct. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs for the claimed amount along with interest and costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC based on the admissions made by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that under Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication in the defendant's pleading, would be deemed admitted. The court also highlighted the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6, which aims to provide speedy judgment when there are clear admissions of facts.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs for the claimed amount along with interest and costs, as the defendants failed to provide specific denials and raise a counter claim.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
OMP No. 46 of 2016
The applicants/plaintiffs have filed this application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for decreeing the suit.
2. It is averred that the defendants have filed written statement in answer to the plaint wherein the defendants have admitted the claim as set out in the plaint as there is no denial to the crucial averments set forth by the plaintiffs. It is further averred that the suit of the plaintiffs otherwise deserves to be decreed on the basis of the following admissions that have been made in the written statement vis-à-vis the averments made in the plaint which are as follows:
“a) That the contents of para 1 to 4 of the plaint have not been denied to the corresponding paras of the written statement on merits. Thus, it stands admitted that the defendant No.1 Company through its Branch Offices commenced business with the plaintiffs for the supply of explosive and other connected materials and also for carrying/transporting the same to their work sites.
b) That the contents of para 4 of the plaint having not been denied, is an admission on the part of the defendant that a mutual and running account was maintained regarding financial/commercial dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Further, that the said account has been debated with the amounts relating to the material supplied to the defendants and transportation of the same by way of explosive vans.
c) That, the specific averments made in para-5 of the plaint pertaining to the actual amount due from the two project sites. The defendant has only made a denial simplicitor and has qualified its liability to pay on the alleged unethical approach of the plaintiff, alleged frequent breakdown of their “explosive van” (incidentally the plaintiff has been operating not only one explosive van but 25 No. of explosive vans the details of which are annexed hereto as Annexure A-1). Further, that the blasting material was allegedly not supplied in time which allegedly affected the work flow of the defendant company. Whereas the plaintiff has specifically claimed a total sum of Rs.42,90,292.36 paise as due from the plaintiff on 30.06.2015 alongwith pendente lite and future interest, however, there is no denial qua this claim of the plaintiff which has been set forth in detail.
d) That the contents of para-6 of the written statement constitutes no denial of the contents of the para-6 of the plaint. The alleged false defense set up is that allegedly due to the alleged non-performance and alleged non delivery of material by the plaintiff, the projects were allegedly adversely affected. However, the same does not constitute any denial to the contents of para-6 which in law stand admitted.
e) That most importantly, the contents of para-8 of the plaint stand admitted by the defendants. The letter No. HPPCL/EIC/SKHEP/DB(HRT) 2014-2013-2023, dated 9.7.2014 addressed by the official of the defendant No.1 Company to the Managing Director, recommending that payments be made to the plaintiffs stands admitted. Thus, also the suit deserves to be decreed on the basis of the admissions made in the written statement.”
3. The defendants in their reply have raised certain preliminary objections wherein it is alleged that the application is devoid of any merit and is based on frivolous and vexatious grounds and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed as such. Insofar as the various admissions as set forth above are concerned, the defendants have filed the following corresponding replies:
“a) That the contents of this sub para are specifically denied. It is again reiterated that the claim of the plaintiff has not been admitted by the defendant in its’ written statement. The defendant had in it’s preliminary submission specifically stated that the defemdant- Company was constructing the Sawra Kuddu Hydro Electri
