Back
RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL
G. M. Worsted Spinning Mills, Faridabad – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. – Respondent
What is the court's power to deem documents admitted under Rule 2A of Order 12 CPC without service of notice? What considerations determine whether the Court may deem documents admitted when a party fails to admit despite multiple opportunities and cost orders? What is the scope and limitations of Rule 2A, Rule 2, Rule 3, and Rule 3A of Order 12 CPC in admitting documents?
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 adjo
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
