The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a clear admission for a judgment on admission and the need for judicious exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the the orders of the learned IV Asst. City Civil Judge at Chennai dated 30.07.2009 made in I.A.No.9687 of 2009 in O.S.No.12 of 2007.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.12 of 200 on the file of the IV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.12 of 2007 against the respondent for a declaration that the deed of mortgage dated 08.02.1999 registered as Doc.No.296 of 1999 executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on payment of Rs.25,601/- towards full and final payment of the above mortgage and direct the respondent to return the original deed of mortgage, blank signed cheques, and the connected title deeds and also xerox copies of the parent documents.

3. The respondent filed written statement along with counter claim on 15.06.2007 and is contesting the suit. The petitioner filed reply statement on 19.09.2007 denying the counter claim of the respondent. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and was cross examined. On behalf of the respondent, one Govindasamy filed proof affidavit. The petitioner filed I.A.No.6194 of 2009 to issue summons to respondent directing her to give evidence in the suit. The respondent filed I.A.No.9687 of 2009 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for a decree for Rs.25,601/- on the admission made in the plaint and Rs.38,500/- being counter claim under Exs.B1 to B3.

4. According to the respondent, the petitioner admitted that a sum of Rs.25,601/- is due and payable by the petitioner on the mortgage deed and admitted execution of promissory note for Rs.25,601/- and endorsement made on the reverse of the promissory note by paying Rs.2,000/-. In view of such admission, the respondent prayed for a decree for the admitted amount. The petitioner filed counter affidavit and denied that he admitted the borrowing of Rs.25,601/- and execution of promissory note and payment of Rs.2,000/- and making endorsement on the reverse of promissory note.

5. According to the petitioner, his Advocate who conducted the case earlier arranged for a loan of Rs.10,000/- and the petitioner executed a registered mortgage deed and as per the instruction of his earlier advocate, he gave signed blank white paper as well as signed blank cheque. The petitioner never met the respondent. Some misunderstanding arose between the petitioner and his earlier advocate. When the petitioner demanded the signed blank white paper and signed blank cheque from his earlier Advocate, he informed the petitioner that the same is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and he has nothing to do with the same. The petitioner issued a letter dated 12.08.2005 to the respondent stating the borrowing of Rs.10,000/- through his earlier advocate and expressed his willingness to repay the said amount due under mortgage deed and requested the respondent to consider the reduction of interest payable by him and return the blank white paper and the blank signed cheque given by him through his earlier Advocate. The respondent did not reply to the said letter and therefore the petitioner has filed the suit. The petitioner further stated in the counter that in his chief examination and cross examination, he has deposed to that effect.

6. The learned Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent passing the decree, as prayed for in the application holding that the petitioner has admitted in the cross examination the claim of the respondent.

7. Against the said order dated 30.07.2009 made in I.A.No.9687 of 2009 in O.S.No.12 of 2007, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner borrowed only a sum of Rs.10,000/- and executed a registered mortgage deed. He did not borrow Rs.25,601/- from the respondent and did not execute promissory note and did not pay Rs.2,000/- and made any endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note. The respondent has fabr