IMPORTANT POINT
Order 12, Rule 6, is wider inasmuch as the provision of Order 12, Rule 1 , is limited to admission by pleading or otherwise in writing.

K.S. Mudagal J.—Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The above appeals and cross objections arise out of common judgment and decrees dated 28.09.2015 in O.S.Nos.213, 214 and 281/2011 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. By impugned judgment, the trial Court allowed applications of the plaintiff under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC and decreed all the three suits for the amount mentioned as below:

O.S. No. 213/2011-Rs.21,59,213/-

O.S. No. 214/2011-Rs.6,97,862/-

O.S. No. 281/2011-Rs.29,69,497/-

Further, the trial court rejected the claim of the plaintiff for interest at 18% p.a.

3. Sri. P. Muralidharan s/o G. Parthasarthy is the common defendant in all the above three suits. M/s. KSG Farm and Nursery represented by Sri. P.Mukundan is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 213/2011. M/s. Agrihorticultural Consultants represented by its Proprietrix Smt.Lalitha Mukundan is the common plaintiff in O.S. Nos.214 and 281/2011.

4. Against the above said common order, the defendant in O.S.No.213/2011 has filed RFA No. 90/2016 and defendant in O.S.No.281/2011 has filed RFA No. 92/2016. Against the rejection of the claim for interest, the plaintiff has filed RFA Crob No. 14/2016 in RFA No. 90/2016 and RFA Crob.16/2016 in RFA No. 92/2016. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the trial Court.

5. The brief facts of the above case are as follows:

In O.S.No.213/2011, the plaintiff sought decree for recovery of Rs.19,80,931/- from the defendant alleging that the defendant owe that amount towards the seeds, saplings and plant materials supplied to it from 2005 to 2010 on credit basis. In O.S.No.281/2011, the plaintiff sought decree for recovery of Rs.29,69,497/- against the defendant alleging that the defendant owes the said amount towards the agricultural input services by way of supervision, labour and supply of saplings and plants, other marketing services rendered between 2006 and 2010 on credit basis. The plaintiff further prayed the interest @ 18% p.a. on the suit claim from the date of the suit till its realization. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants have admitted their liability in the income tax returns submitted by them to the income tax authorities for the respective assessment years. The defendants contested all the three suits. The trial Court framed the issues.

6. In the midst of evidence of PW1, plaintiff filed application under Order 12, Rule 6 , CPC in all the three cases seeking decree on admission on the ground that in the written statement in each case, there is no specific denial of the suit transactions and the suit claim and that the defendants have admitted their liability in their income tax returns filed during the respective years. The defendants contested the said applications denying the claim made in the applications and claiming that the matter requires to be adjudicated on full pledged trial. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties by the impugned judgments upheld the contention of the plaintiffs and decreed the suits and rejected the claim of the plaintiffs for interest.

7. Having heard both the parties extensively, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:

‘Whether the impugned judgment and decree are sustainable in law’

8. The learned counsel for the appellants in his arguments assails the judgments on the following grounds:

(i) that in the written statement there is no admission;

(ii) the auditor of the plaintiffs and the defendants was common and the income tax returns referred to in the plaint are the out come of the collusion between the said two to defraud the defendants;

(iii) when the genuineness of those documents was disputed, unless the said documents are proved summoning the originals, they cannot be called as admission;

(iv) Order 12, Rule 6 , CPC cannot be invoked u