Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ 64/24
SATISH JAIN Vs. SAKSHI JAIN
22.01.2025
Present : Sh. Vipin Arora, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Pankaj Jain and Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Ld. Counsel for
defendant.
Reply to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed.
Copy supplied.
Ld Counsel for plaintiff argued on his application under Order
12 Rule 6 CPC stating that defendant has admitted that he has taken
Rs.27,10,000/- and out of that he has returned an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs.
Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to a decree for an amount of Rs. 17,10,000/-
with interest @ 24% p.a.
Vide reply it has been stated that above said application has
been strongly opposed by Ld Counsel for defendant stating that admission
of defendant is conditional and not a clear one which is mandatory for the
purpose of allowing the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC or for
passing any decree on the basis of admission. It has been further stated in
the reply that in the month of August, 2023, the defendant was facing
financial crises in her business and as such the defendant was in need of
financial help in order to make the payment of goods to be imported from
China, which includes the cost of goods, port charges, shipping lines
charges and other expenses. It has been further submitted that the defendant
came in contact with plaintiff and one Sh. Ashwani Jain through her
husband Rahul. It has been further stated that as the relationship between
above named person with the husband of defendant was cordial and
friendly, therefore defendant had entered into a contract with the plaintiff
that plaintiff shall provide financial assistance to the defendant on condition
-- 1 of 6 --
that the consigned goods from China shall be mortgaged by defendant to the
plaintiff and plaintiff shall return the goods back to the defendant in
accordance with payment made by defendant to the plaintiff. It has been
further stated that after receiving the payment of Rs.27,10,000/- from the
plaintiff in three parts for purchasing the consigned goods, the defendant on
01.09.2023 had sent the consigned goods in the Godown of plaintiff and Sh.
Ashwani Jain at Gali No. 18, Extended Lal Dora, Rithala, Delhi-110085
through Nice Cargo vide Truck No. HR-55X-1930 with E-way Bill No.
731363915334 for a sum of Rs.27,18,664/- and said goods were received by
plaintiff in good condition, which are still lying in the Godown of plaintiff.
It has been further stated that defendant had already filed all the documents
relating to aforesaid goods alongwith her written statement and thus,
admission as alleged on the part of defendant is conditional i.e. if the
plaintiff releases/returns the goods worth Rs.2,71,864/- to the defendant
which is lying in custody of the plaintiff since 01.09.2023 then defendant
shall return the amount or in alternate adjust the amount of Rs.27,18,664/-
towards the outstanding sum of Rs.17,10,000/- and make the payment of
balance amount of Rs.10,08,664/- to the defendant.
Arguments heard. Case file perused.
The relevant law applicable to the controversy between the
parties is contained in the Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The same gives the power to the Court to pass a decree on the admissions of
the defendant. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
reproduced hereunder:
"ORDER XII-ADMISSIONS Rule 6. Judgment on
admissions-
(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in
the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing,
-- 2 of 6 --
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."
In the case of Vijaya Myne Vs. Satya Bhusan Kaura, reported
in 142 (2007) DLT 483 (DB), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court has observed as under:-
"....... 12. The purpose and objective in enacting the
provision like Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to enable
the Court to pronounce the judgment on admission
when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the
plaintiff to get the decree, inasmuch as such a
provision is enacted to render speedy judgments
and save the parties from going through the
rigmarole of a protracted trial. The admissions can
be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in
documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral
or in writing. The admissions can even be
constructive admissions and need not be specific or
expressive which can be inferred from the vague
and evasive denial in the written statement while
answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiff. The
admissions can even be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case. No doubt, for this
purpose, the Court has to scrutinize the pleadings in
their detail and has to come to the conclusion that
the admissions are unequivocal, unqualified and
unambiguous. In the process, the Court is also
required to ignore vague, evasive and unspecific
denials as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the
written statement and replies. Even a contrary stand
-- 3 of 6 --
taken while arguing the matter would be required to
be ignored....."
In State Bank of India vs. Midland Industries And Ors. decided
on 17 September, 1987, by our own Hon'ble High Court, it has been held
that:-
“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 clear,
unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal.
Furthermore a judgment on admission by the defendant
under Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code 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 or a motion under this rule the
court is free to refuse exercising discretion in favour of
the party invoking it. It is not in each case where Order
12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is invoked that the court
would be obliged to pass a decree which case would
depend upon its own peculiar facts. 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 purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is
to avoid waiting by the plaintiff for part of the decree
when there is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and
unconditional admission of the defendant in respect of
the claim of the defendant. The rule only secures that if
there is no dispute between the parties, and if there is on
the pleadings or otherwise such an admission as to make
it plain that the plaintiff is entitled to a particular order
or judgment he should be able to obtain it at once to the
extent of admission. But 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
-- 4 of 6 --
decree and the plaintiff in that event cannot have a
decree by virtue of provision of Order 12 rule 6 Civil
Procedure Code without proving those issues.”
It was similarly held by a Division Bench of Jammu &
Kashmir High Court in Union of India vs. M/s Feroze and Co. Air 1960
J&K66 (2) that:-
“ A judgment on admission under Order 12 rule 6 is a
matter of discretion and not a matter of right and the
court would not entertain an application for such
judgment when the case involves questions which cannot
be conveniently dealt with in a motion under the rule. In
order that a judgment may be obtained under Order 12
rule 6 CPC the admission must be unconditional, clear
and unequivocal”.
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and can not be claimed
as a matter of right, if defendant has taken objection which goes to root of
the case, then judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC not appropriate. The
admission should be clear & unequivocal and it is not that on the basis of
the interpretation of one of the parties with respect to statement of any of
the parties, the decree can be passed under order 12 rule 6 CPC.
In the case in hand, evidently the admission of the defendant is
conditional one. This fact also find strength from whatsapp chat which has
been placed on record by the defendant. In fact, the defendant has also filed
counter claim in this regard. Therefore, application under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC stands dismissed.
Put up for admission denial of documents and framing of
issues on 04.03.2025.
(VANDANA)
DJ-08 : CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
-- 5 of 6 --
22.01.2025
-- 6 of 6 --