The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for a judgment and decree based on admissions of liability.

1. The application has been filed for passing of judgment and decree in terms of the first respondent's letter of undertaking dated 20.3.2001 on the following allegations: The suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.28,50,000 being the principal and interest payble by the respondents/defendents. In the suit, the applicant filed an application for attachment of the immovable properties of the respondents bearing Door No.22, Nageswara St Nungambakkam, Chennai, and also for attachment of movables in the hospital belonging to the respondents. Viz M/s Kay Pee Kay Medical Services Pvt Ltd. running a hospital in the name of M/s Chennai Kaliappa Hospital at Raja Annamalaipuram. Originally notice was ordered to the respondents and after service of notice, when the respondents failed to furnish security, by order dated 13.3.2001, this Court directed attachment of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the application. The Bailiffs of Nazir Section, High Court Court, attached the immovable properties at No. 22 Nageswara Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai. When the Bailiffs went to Chennai Kaliappa Hospital to effect attachment of the movables, the first respondent gave a letter of undertaking to the effect that he would pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 at the first instance and clear balance plaint amount within a period of two month therefrom. He gave Rs.l,00,000 by cash, gave 14 cheques for Rs.1,00,000 each with specific dates on them. On such payment and execution of letter of undertaking voluntarily, the first respondent requested the applicant and the applicant in his turn requested the bailiffs to keep the warrant in abeyance for a period of three weeks from 20.3.2001 in order to enable him to realise the cheques. Accordingly, the applicant gave a letter to the bailiffs. The bailiffs left the hospital and also submitted a report to this Court. Two days after this, the first respondent filed two applications before this Court seeking to raise the attachment and stay of the order of attachment in Application Nos.1316 and 1319 of 2001 and on 27.3.2001 this Court dismissed the applications as infructuous. Though the application in A.No.390 of 2000 for attachment before judgment was not listed, in view of the order passed by this Court in the other two applications, it should be construed that the application in A.No.390 of 2000 was also dismissed. Another application in A.No.2046 of 2001 filed by the applicant once again for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 was dismissed by this Court on 13.6.2001. The first respondent on his own free will and volition executed the letter of undertaking and made part payment in cash and thereby made the applicant believe that he was honest in settling the suit claim. He pleaded with the applicant to avoid attachment and promised that the cheques would be cleared as and when presented for realisation. More over, the applicant being a doctor was not interested in disturbing the tranquility of the hospital and therefore, accepted the letter of undertaking together with 14 post-dated cheques and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in cash. The first respondent also convinced the applicant that he would settle the suit claim within two months from the date of undertaking. The first respondent while executing the After the 14 cheques given by the first respondent, the applicant presented "two cheques dated 22.3.2001 and 24.3.2001 for realisation to their banker. They well-realised. The first respondent, however, instructed the banker not to honour the other cheques. The remaining 12 cheques presented by the applicant as and when they were due, were returned as per the instructions of the first respondent. The applicant was therefore constrained to take proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and they are pending before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet. The letter of undertaking has been acted upon as two cheques were encashed. There was no reason for the fi