IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 1660 of 2010 PERFECT SALE Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri H.K.Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

ORDER

1.With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.

2.The instant writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11/02/2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2008, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking judgment of the suit on the basis of alleged admission on behalf of the respondents has been rejected.

3.Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that in purusant to the tender proceedings instituted by the respondents, the petitioner was awarded contract of repairing of vehicles belonging to the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Dispute arose with respect to payment of bills of Rs. 1,14,400/- and, therefore, the petitioner instituted pre-litigation proceedings and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, the order (Annexue P/4) came to be passed, wherein, the matter was kept for disposal of the proceedings as it was admitted by the respondents that bills of the petitioner have been processed for payment and the payment shall be made as and when funds are allotted. It appears that subsequently respondents disputed payment of bills on the ground that in terms of tender condition, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to submit original bills of the replaced parts and unless the petitioner submits the original bills of the replaced parts his payment cannot be made. The petitioner, therefore, sought withdrawal of the pre-litigation proceedings, which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 07/08/2005 and liberty was extended to the petitioner to institute regular civil suit for recovery of the contractual dues. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted afresh civil suit bearing case No. 2-B/2008 claiming payment of contractual dues.

4.Written statement was filed in the said proceedings by respondents, wherein, in para 2, it was stated that terms of the tender provides for submission of the original bills of the replaced parts which have not been furnished by the petitioner. It was also stated that in the earlier Lok Adalat, the respondents have agreed to make payment to the petitioner and cheque was also prepared, but since the petitioner did not furnish original bills of the replaced parts, the matter could not be settled in the Lok Adalat. It was also stated in the written statement that in case the petitioner submits original bills of the replaced parts then the respondents are ready and willing to make payment to the petitioner.

5.Taking clue from the written statement, an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was filed by the petitioner in the pending civil suit seeking judgment on the ground of alleged admission to make payment of the dues to the petitioner by the respondents. The said application has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 11/02/2010 (Annexure P/1) and it is this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having once admitted claim of the petitioner before the Lok Adalat, the respondents cannot revert back from their own stand by contending that the petitioner is required to submit original bills of the replaced parts. He further submits that original bills of the replaced parts have already been submitted by him before the then officers of the respondents long back and now it may not be possible for him to re-submit those documents. He further submits that once the respondents admitted the claim of the petitioner, no further adjudication of the suit is warranted and the suit dese