JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 4482/2021 (u/Order XII Rule 6 CPC) in CS(COMM) 540/2017

1. By way of captioned application, the plaintiff seeks following prayer:

“Direct the Defendant to pay the amount admitted in tax certificates amounting Rs. 1,37,00,000/- alternatively the amount admitted in the reply to the legal notice amounting to Rs. 42,06,000/- due to the Plaintiff”

2. Plaintiff has instituted the underlying suit for recovery of Rs.2,17,60,000/-. In the plaint, it is claimed that the defendant was awarded a Contract by Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructural Corporation Ltd. for development of infrastructural work for development of an industrial township in Rohtak, Panipat and Rai. The defendant sub-contracted part of the work to the plaintiff by way of two separate contracts. The plaintiff claimed its entitlement to receive an amount of Rs.4.76 crores. After adjustment of accounts, the amounts remaining recoverable, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 05.07.2014 thereby asking the defendant to pay the balance remaining amounting to Rs.1.60 crores. The defendant replied to the said legal notices vide its reply dated 19.07.2014.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that in its reply to the legal notices, the defendant unambiguously admitted its liability to the extent of Rs.19.60 lacs. He submits that part-liability being admitted by the defendant, the said admitted amount be directed to be released to the plaintiff. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. v. United Bank of India reported as (2000)

7 SCC 120.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant contended that the defendant in its written statement explained the averments made in the reply to the legal notice and as such, any liability was denied and no part of the claim was admitted. He placed reliance on the decisions of State Bank of India v. Midland Industries & Ors. reported as AIR 1988 Del 153, Express Tower P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Mohan Singh & Ors. reported as 2007 (97) DRJ 687 (DB) and Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors. reported as AIR 1958 SC 886.

5. Order XII CPC relates to ‘Admissions’. Rule 6 provides that if a party has made admissions in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit pass a judgment on admission without first determining any other question between the parties. The Court can pass such a judgment either on the application of any party or in its own motion as well. The condition precedent for passing such a judgment is that the admissions must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Further the judgment on admission is not a matter of a right but is rather a discretion vested with the Court which, of course, is to be exercised judicially. The object of Rule 6 is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment atleast to the extent of relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled (Ref: Uttam Singh Duggal(Supra)).

6. In State Bank of India (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows :-

“(6) Having noted these facts of this case it would be appropriate to refer to Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code. which lays down as under :-

"6(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.

There is no doubt that Rule 6 of Order 12 has been couched in a very wide language. However, before a court can act under Rule 6, admission must be cle