OD - 13 ORDE SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE CS/123/2019 IA NO: GA/2/2020 (Old No: GA/584/2020)

HARISH CHANDRA JAISWAL VS RAM CHANDRA SHAW AND ORS.

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR Date: 27^th February, 2025 Appearance:

Syed E. Huda, Adv.

Sk Aptabuddin, Adv.

....for the Plaintiff Mr. Meghnad Dutta, Adv.

Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv.

Mr. Subham Bandopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Piya Rajbhar, Adv.

…for the Defendant nos. 1 & 2 The Court: GA 2 of 2020 is filed by the plaintiff, praying for judgment on admission.

Contention of the plaintiff in the application is that, one M/s. Prakash Brothers, a partnership firm being represented by two partners Laxmi Prasad Gupta and Om Prakash Gupta was defendant in the premises no. 192 Vivekananda Road, Kolkata, 06. Since the said partnership firm defaulted in payment of rent, the present plaintiff as well as the defendant nos. 3 and 5 filed one Ejectment Suit in the City Civil Court wherein, the Learned 4th Bench passed decree in favour of the plaintiff on 07.04.2008. In course of execution proceeding, possession was handed over to the present plaintiff on 26.10.2009. On 30^th June, 2019, the plaintiff found that the gate of the suit property had been broken and same was occupied by the defendant no. 1 and 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant nos. 1 and 2, praying for recovery of possession.

The defendant nos. 1 and 2 herein filed written statement wherein, according to the plaintiff, it is averred that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are partners of M/s. Prakash Brothers, the partnership firm, against whom the decree was passed by the City Civil Court. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendant nos. 1 and 2 were never partners with M/s. Prakash Brothers. At the same time, it is pleaded that since the present defendant nos. 1 and 2 claim to be in the possession of the suit property by virtue of being partners of M/s. Prakash Brothers, they cannot be allowed to remain in the suit property in view of the decree dated 07.04.2008, being an eviction decree that was passed against the partnership firm.

It is pleaded that in view of this admission that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are partners of M/s. Prakash Brothers, against whom an eviction decree has been passed, judgment for recovery of possession should be passed on the basis of this admission.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed affidavit in opposition challenging the contentions of the instant application. It is pleaded that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are in occupation in the suit property on the strength of a leave and license agreement, executed between the Defendant No. 4 and the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein. Apart from these factual aspects, it is also pleaded that this is not a fit case where judgment on admission should be passed. According to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 the application should be dismissed.

I have heard rival submissions and perused the notes of arguments filed by both the learned counsels.

Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for judgment of admission. The provision goes as follows:

“6. Judgment on admissions.—(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise; whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question-between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”

Use of the word “may” clearly indicates that the power is discretionary for the Court to pass judgment on admission. In Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar (2022) 10 SCC 496, it was observed by the Supreme Court of India

23. Order 12 Rule 6 confers discretionary power to a court who “may” at any