The Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.14,00,000/-

from the defendant, stating that the said amount was borrowed

by the defendants for purchasing the immovable properties.

The defendants entered appearance, and filed the written

statement. In the written statement, the defendant admitted

that

he

received

a

sum

of

Rs.6,35,990/-,

and

not

Rs.14,00,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff and he further

admitted that he is due a sum of Rs.4,35,990/-.

- 3 -

2.

The plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No.3 under

Order XII Rule 6(1) and (2) of CPC, praying to pass judgment

and decree on the categorical admission made by the

defendant that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,35,990/-,

out of which he has paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff

in the month of October-2016, and he further assured to the

plaintiff,

that

he

will

pay

the

remaining

amount

of

Rs.4,35,990/- within reasonable time.

3.

The trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting

the application stating that, the issue is framed, as to whether

the suit is barred by limitation or not and accordingly,

dismissed the application. Against which the present petition is

filed.

4.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

submits that in view of the categorical admission made by the

defendant, the trial Court ought to have exercised the power

under Order XII Rule 6(1) and (2) of CPC, and passed the

judgment and decree. However, the trial Court without

exercising the said power has dismissed the said application,

and the same is unsustainable.

- 4 -

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

defendant submits that, the defendant has categorically denied

that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- from the

plaintiff, and issue is framed, as to whether the suit is barred

by limitation, and as such, the trial Court has rightly passed the

impugned order. He further submits that the claim of the

plaintiff is bared by limitation, and the application filed by the

plaintiff is not maintainable.

6.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsels for the parties.

7.

A perusal of the written statement indicates that,

the defendant has categorically admitted in Paragraphs-3, 5, 11

and 14, that he had borrowed in all a sum of Rs.6,35,990/-,

and out of said amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was repaid to

the plaintiff in the month of October-2016, and the defendant

had assured to the plaintiff, that he would repay the remaining

amount of Rs.4,35,990/- within reasonable time.

8.

Order XII Rule 6(1) and (2) of CPC specifies that,

the where admission of fact have been made either in the

pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court

- 5 -

may at any stage of 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 and 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 passed.

9.

In the instant case, though the plaintiff has claimed

a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- from the defendant, however, filed an

application, restricting the claim to Rs.4,35,990/- since, the

defendant has categorically admitted the liability to the said

extent, and also the suit was filed within three years from the

date, the defendant acknowledged the liability to pay the

balance amount of Rs.4,35,990/-. The trial Court instead of

exercising its power under the said provisions, has rejected the

application, and the same is not sustainable in law. Hence, the

plaintiff is entitled for recovering the admitted liability of

Rs.4,35,990/- from the defendant. Accordingly, I pass the

following:

- 6 -

ORDER

i.

Petition is allowed.

ii.

The impugned order dated 14.12.2020 passed in

I.A. 3 by the XXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru in O.S.No.2561/2019 is hereby set