P.N Nag, J. (Oral):— In this application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff has prayed for parsing a decree on the basis of admission of the suit amount.
2. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 21,76,110.39 with pendente lite and future interest. According to the plaintiff, the defendants in the written statement in reply to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint, while admitting that loans and advances were availed of by them, stated that there was no mala fide intention on behalf of the defendants in being irregular in the matter of payment of advances made. It was also stated in these paras that it is only due to financial constraints that the defendants were compelled to be irregular in the matter of accounts. It has been admitted by the defendants that they have every desire to return the correct amount to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has stated that admission/denial of documents carried out by the defendants in January, 1990, Balance Confirmation dated 31-7-1981, wherein debts upto 30-6-1981 have been acknowledged by the defendants, has been admitted on behalf of the defendants 1 to 6. From the above, the plaintiff wants to demonstrate that the defendants have admitted the whole amount and on the basis of the admission by the defendants, the suit deserves to be decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. The defendants have opposed this application on various grounds. The principal ground taken by them is that the suit involves questions of fact which cannot be disposed of on motion under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and without leading evidence in support of the above fact.
4. Vide order dated 18th April, 1985 the following issues were framed in the suit:
“1. Was the plaint signed and verified by an authorised person ? OPP
2. Did the defendants sign blank documents or printed forms without filling in the blanks ? If so, what is its effect ? OPD
3. Are the defendants entitled to any relief in respect of interest under the Usurious Loan Act and/or Punjab relief of Indebtness Act as extended to Union Territory of Delhi ? If so what relief ? OPD
4. To what rate of interest is the plaintiff entitled ? OPP
5. Is the plaintiff not entitled to compound interest or penal interest ? If so to what relief in this respect are the defendants entitled ? OPD
6. In what amount is the plaintiff entitled under the different accounts ? OPP
7. Where the credit facilities availed by and on behalf of Bimla Udyog and not on behalf of M/s. Bindal Construction (P) Ltd. ? OPD
8. Relief.”
Learned counsel for the plaintiff, during the course of arguments, has raised the same contentions as have been referred to in this application inasmuch as the defendants in their written statement in reply to paras 19 and 20 of the plaint have admitted the whole amount and that further Balance Confirmation dated 31-7-1981, wherein debts upto 30-6-1981 have been acknowledged by the defendants, has been admitted by the defendants, and on this basis there is a clear admission on behalf of the defendants, Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon M/S. P. Roy Company…Plaintife v. Punjab National Bank & Another…Denedant (1980-18 DLT 318), (1) particularly paras 29 and 33.
5. I have given carefully consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. However, I regret I am unable to accept the same. In reply to paras 19 and 20 of the plaint in the written statement I do not find any admission on the part of the defendants. It has only been stated in the reply that the defendants have every desire to return the correct amount to the plaintiff. But no where it has been stated that what is the correct amount which is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Furthermore, It has not been shown that the Balance Confirmation date 31-7-1981 has been admitted by the defendants. On the other hand, issue No. 2 has been framed by this court on 18th April, 1985 which is as under:
“2. Did the defendants sign blank documents or printed forms without filling in the blanks ? If so, what is its effect ? OPD”
The decision on this issue involves the adducing of evidence and if finding ultimately is found in favour of the defendants, it can entail the dismissal of the suit. Therefore, in these circumstances it cannot be said that there is an admission on the part of the defendants to return particular amount as shown in the Balance Confirmation. The case is already fixed for trial. The decision in the suit depends on the determination and finding on the issues after the production of evidence by the parties. All these issues involved questions of fact which cannot he disposed of on motion under Order 12 Rule 6 and without leading evidence in support of these facts. Therefore, at this stage, no decree can be passed on the basis of so-called admission as referred to by the plaintiff in this application. The case relied upon by the plaintiff is hardly of any assistance to her as that case was decided after the trial on having given finding on all the issues and this does not relate to the passing of a decree on admission. In State Bank of India v. M/s. Midland Industries and others (AIR 1988 Delhi 153), (2) Mahesh Chandra, J. of this court HELD:
“Undoubtedly Rule 6 of Order 12 has been couched in a very wide language. However, before a Court can act under R. 6, admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Furthermore a judgment on admission by the defendant under 0.12, R. 6 is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court, no doubt such discretion has to be judicially exercised. If a case involves questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under this rule the Court is free to refuse exercising discretion in favour of the party invoking it. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the very root of the case, it would not be proper to exercise this discretion and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The rule is not intended to apply where there are serious questions of law to be asked and determined. Likewise where specific issues have been raised in spite of admission on the part of the defendants the plaintiff would be bound to lead evidence on those issues and prove the same before he becomes entitled to decree and the plaintiff in that event cannot have a decree by virtue of provision of 0.12, R. 6, C.P.C without proving those issues.
6. In this case, as already stated, firstly there in no clear and unequivocal admission by the defendants and further the issues framed involve determination of question of facts which cannot be disposed of on motion under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and without leading evidence in support of the facts. Decision on certain issues in favour of the defendants can result into the dismissal of the suit against the plaintiff and in fact go to the root of the case. In these circumstances. No decree can be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 as prayed for by the plaintiff on the basis of so-called admission. The application is therefore, dismissed.
Application dismissed.