Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1 CS SCJ 543/23
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ARUN
KAUSHIK
25.04.2025
Present: Sh. Navdeep Singh, Ld. counsel for plaintiff via VC.
Sh. S.K. Shailesh, Ld. counsel for defendant
alongwith the defendant.
1. Arguments on the application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC
were heard on behalf of the parties. Record perused.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that
inadvertently the processing fee of the surveyor Sh. Manish Batra
had been credited in the account of the defendant on multiple
occasions and the defendant has admitted that only a claim of
Rs.3,800/- was payable to him. It is submitted that defendant has
admitted that recovery amount was only transferred by the
plaintiff to the defendant without desire or demand of the
defendant and this proves that defendant was not entitled to any
amount other than Rs.3,800/-. It is contended that bank statement
of the plaintiff has not been denied by the defendant and defense
raised by the defendant is sham. It was prayed that in view of the
admissions, present application be allowed.
3. Per contra, the application was opposed on behalf of
defendant. Ld. counsel for defendant states that it is incorrect that
defendant was not entitled to any other amount other than
Rs.3,800/-. It is submitted that defendant is not liable to pay the
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
amount as claimed by the plaintiff. It is prayed that the
application be dismissed.
4. Order XII Rule 6 CPC provides that:
“Where admissions of fact have been made either in
the plading 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 regards to
such admissions.”
5. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case titled as
'Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik 104 (2003)
DLT 151 (DB)' that in the pleadings or otherwise or orally or in
writing that the admissions must be clear and unequivocal,
unconditional and unambiguous. Further, admissions need not be
made specifically or expressly and could be constructive
admission as well. The object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to
enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent
of the relief relating to the admissions of the defendant, to which
the plaintiff is entitled.
6. The present suit has been filed stating that the
defendant had taken a coverage policy from the plaintiff and a
claim was made out by the defendant and Sh. Manish Batra was
appointed as surveyor to assess the loss. It is stated that
inadvertently bank details of the defendant were entered instead
of bank details of Sh. Manish Batra and payments which were to
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
be made to Sh. Manish Batra were credited in the account of the
defendant and defendant was not entitled to receive such amount
and is liable to pay such amount to the plaintiff. As per the
written statement, the claim amount of Rs.3,800/- has been
received by the defendant from the plaintiff, however, it has been
specifically denied in the WS that the amount as claimed by the
plaintiff was deposited in the account of the defendant and that
such amount has been misappropriated and defendant is liable to
refund the same to the plaintiff. It has also been mentioned in the
WS that recovery amount was transferred by the plaintiff to the
defendant without desire or demand of the defendant. Thus, it is
seen that there is no clear or unambiguous admission on the part
of the defendant, however, there may be contradictory
submissions and one submission cannot be given precedence
over other submission in absence of evidence having been led.
Further, defendant has not accepted the statement of account of
the plaintiff. Moreover, as per the defendant, the amount of
Rs.3,800/- has been received as claim amount and not for any
other purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged
admission of defendant is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal.
7. In view of the above discussion, it is held that there
is no clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission on behalf of
defendant to enable the plaintiff to get judgment on admissions.
Therefore, the present application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC moved on
behalf of the plaintiff is dismissed.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
Let affidavit of A/D of documents be filed by the
parties.
Parties are at liberty to file proposed issues if any.
Now to come up for settlement of issues on
10.06.2025.
(KAPIL GUPTA)
Civil Judge-06 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi/25.04.2025
-- 4 of 4 --