This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of a Single Judge decreeing a part of the plaintiffs claim upon admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts, in so far as they are material, are as follows:

(2) The plaintiff, Feroze and Co; instituted a suit for the recovery of five lacs of rupees from the defendant which included the security deposits amounting to Rs.l,70,000/- lying with the defendant on account of various contracts entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant, the plaintiff made an application to the Court under Order 12, Rule 6, C. P. C. praying that a decree be passed in its favour for a sum of Rs.l,70,000/- admitted by the defendant in its written statement to be due to the plaintiff firm and payable by it. The defendant resisted this application on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the security deposits cannot be decreed unless the plaintiff furnished a no demand certificate as required by clause 17(iv) of the contract entered into between the parties.

It was further pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement. The learned trial Judge over- ruled these objections and held that there was an unconditional admission on the part of the defendant in respect of the liability for return of security amount of Rs.1,70,000/- that the conditions laid under Order 12, Rule 6, C. P. C. were fully satisfied and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs.1,70,000/- lying with the defendant as security deposits. A decree for Rs.1,70,000/-was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant has appealed against this judgment and decree.

(3) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Judge Had erred in holding that there was an unconditional admission of liability on the part of the defendant in respect bf security deposits of Rs.1,70,000/- lying with it It is argued that in paragraph 9 of the written statement the defendant had definitely stated that it was prepared to return the balance of security deposits to the plaintiff only on its furnishing a no demand certificate as contemplated by the terms of the agreement, that there was no unconditional or unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant regarding its liability to pay the security deposits to the plaintiff and that a decree could not have been passed for this amount under Order 12, Rule 6, C. P. C. Paragraph 9 of the written statement filed by the defendant is in the following terms:

"The defendant has always been and is even now prepared to return the balance of security deposits to the plaintiff on his furnishing the ˜No-Demand Certificate as contemplated in the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff being bound by clause 17(iv) of the agreement, has to execute a ˜No-Demand Certificate™ and on his furnishing the same, accounts are to be got audited and settled finally by the Accounts Branch who shall order to release of the security. In all the cases where No-Demand Certificate has been furnished, the plaintiff has been paid the amount deposited in other cases as he does, not furnish No-Demand Certificate the securities cannot be released nor the amount ordered to be paid. In such circumstances the suit for the return of security deposits is pre-mature, uncalled for, incomplete and not maintainable",

From what has been stated in the written statement it is clear that the defendant admits that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the security deposits but subject to the condition that it executes a no-demand certificate as required under clause 17(iv) of the agreement between the parties. After the no demand certificate is furnished by the plaintiff, the defendant has to get the accounts audited and to ascertain if there is any claim or the defendant against the plaintiff and then release the securities.

Great stress has been laid by the co