Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
G.M.Worsted Spinning Mills, Faridabad
Versus
Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd.
Civil Revision No. 1181 of 1985,
Decided On : JULY 25, 1985
ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS - O.12 R.2A CPC - NOTICE NOT SERVED - COURT'S POWER TO DEEM DOCUMENTS ADMITTED - INTERPRETATION OF RULES 2, 2A, 3 AND 3A OF O.12 CPC - COURT'S DISCRETION TO REQUIRE PROOF OF ADMITTED DOCUMENTS - PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE NEGLECT OR REFUSAL TO ADMIT DOCUMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant-petitioner. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement. The case was adjourned for replication and admission and denial of documents. The defendant did not appear on the adjourned date and sought adjournments on subsequent dates. The Court granted adjournments on payment of costs. On the last date, the defendant did not appear and his attorney and lawyer expressed their inability to admit or deny the documents. The Court passed an order deeming the documents to be admitted under R.2A of O.12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that R.2A of O.12 CPC covers not only cases where a notice has been served by a party on the other party under R.2 but also cases where the Court directs a party to admit the documents and it refuses or neglects to admit such documents. The Court further held that the defendant's repeated failure to appear and admit the documents despite being granted multiple opportunities and being ordered to pay costs showed that he was intentionally delaying the suit.
Issues: Whether the Court could pass an order under R.2A of O.12 CPC without service of notice by the plaintiff to admit documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Rules 2, 2A, 3, and 3A of O.12 CPC harmoniously and held that R.2A applies to both cases where a party serves a notice under R.2 and cases where the Court directs a party to admit documents. The Court also held that the defendant's repeated failure to appear and admit the documents despite being granted multiple opportunities and being ordered to pay costs showed that he was intentionally delaying the suit.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition subject to the observation that the Court should specify which documents would be deemed to be admitted and that the defendant could apply to the Court to exclude certain documents from being deemed admitted.
Key Points: - The court held that Rule 2A applies to both cases where a notice to admit documents is served and cases where the court directs a party to admit documents and the party neglects or refuses to admit (!) . - Repeated failure to appear and admit documents, with cost orders, can indicate deliberate delay and justify deeming documents admitted under Rule 2A (!) . - The judgment clarifies harmony among Rules 2, 2A, 3, and 3A of Order 12 CPC, and that the court may specify which documents are deemed admitted and allow exclusion of certain documents on application (!) (!) . - The defendant’s failure to admit despite multiple adjournments and costs led to the dismissal of the revision petition, subject to the noted observations (!) . - Rule 2A requires that some documents may be exempt from deemed admission if denied specifically or by necessary implication in pleadings or replies to the notice to admit documents (!) . - Rule 3A empowers the court to call upon a party to admit documents on its own motion, similar in effect to Rule 2 but without a prior notice (!) . - The decision emphasizes that a safeguard exists to avoid deeming documents that are denied or not admitted in pleadings (!) . - The court observed that the need for specifying which documents are deemed admitted and allowing exclusion upon proper application remains essential (!) .
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad dated 5th April, 1985, that the documents of the plaintiff would be deemed to be admitted by the defendant in view of R.2A of O.12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Briefly the facts are that Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited, the respondent in the present revision petition, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.29,30,867.01 against the defendant-petitioner. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement on 4th Jan. 1985. The case was adjourned by the Court on that date to 22nd Jan. 1985 for replication and admission and denial of the documents. On the adjourned date the replication was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear for admission and denial of the documents and an adjournment was requested on his behalf for that purpose. The Court, subject to payment of Rs.30/- as costs, adjourned the case to 15th Feb, 1985 for admission and denial. Again the defendant did not appear on 15th Feb. 1985 and the adjournment was sought by his counsel. Adjournment was granted at the request of the counsel on payment of Rs.30/- as costs, and the case was adjourned to 1st March, 1985. Again, on that date the defendant did not appear and a similar request was made as was done on earlier hearings. The Court still gave another opportunity to the defendant to appear on 22nd March, 1985, subject to payment of Rs.50/- as costs. On 22nd March, 1985, the defendant sent a medical certificate that he was not feeling fit. The Court, in view of the medical certificate, gave last opportunity to him and the case was adjourned to 5th April, 1985. On that date too the defendant did not appear. The defendant s attorney and the lawyer expressed their inability to admit or deny the documents. Consequently the Court passed the impugned order. The defendant has come up in revision to this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no notice was given by the plaintiff for admission of the documents to the defendant under R.2, O.12 and, therefore, R. 2A was not applicable. So, he urges, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. I have duly considered the argument but do not find any substance in it. In order to deal with the same, it is necessary to reproduce Rr.2, 2A, 3 and 3A of O.12 of the Code :
"2. Either party may call upon the other party to admit, within fifteen days from the date of service of the notice any document, saving all just exceptions; and in case of refusal or neglect to admit, after such notice, the costs of proving any such document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs;. ...........
2A (1) Every document which a party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a disability : Provided that the Court may, in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded, require any document so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such admission.
(2) Where a party unreasonably neglects or refuses to admit a document after the service on him of the notice to admit documents, the Court may direct him to pay costs to the other party by way of compensation.
3. A notice to admit documents shall be in Form No.9 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.
3A. Notwithstanding that no notice to admit documents has been given under Rule 2, the Court may, at any stage of the proceeding before it, of its own motion, call upon any party to admit any document and shall, in such a case, record whether the party admits or refuses or neglects to admit such document."
5. From a reading of the rules it is evident that R. 2 authorises a party to serve a notice on the opposite party to admit th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
