Order 26

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 127/2024
Raj Kumar Kapil Vs. M/s Antram Fisheries & Ors.
11.02.2026
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XIII-A READ WITH
ORDER VIII RULE 3A & 5 OF CPC
Vide this order I shall dispose of application under Order XIII-A
read with Order VIII Rule 3A & 5 of CPC for summary judgment.
1. Arguments heard.
2. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has filed this
suit for recovery of Rs. 4,60,637/- along with interest @ 18% per annum
and the defendants also served but have failed to file WS along with
affidavit of admission-denial documents, due to this court has struck off
defense of the defendant No. 1 to 4 vide order dated 22.09.2025. It is
further argued that the plaintiff has filed this suit on the basis of documents
those are unrebutted in the absence of affidavit of admission-denial of
documents. It is further argued that entire case of the plaintiff is unrebutted
for the want of any defense of the defendants and now nothing is to be
proved by the plaintiff through evidence. It is further argued that suit is
based upon documents which are unrebutted and the defendants have no
CS (Comm) No. 127/2024
Raj Kumar Kapil Vs. Antram Fisheries & Ors. 1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
real prospects of succeeding, due to summary judgment may be passed in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendants has opposed this
application and has submitted that there is a dispute of some amount paid
by the defendants, which is denied by the plaintiff and may be considered
by the court only after trial and merely not filing of WS does not mean that
the plaintiff has got right to get judgment on admission, as parameters for
passing a judgment on admission/summary judgment are altogether
different, which are not available in this case, due to the plaintiff has to
prove all facts including documents. It is further argued that the defendants
have not admitted any fact in pleadings or otherwise to pass a judgment on
admission / summary judgment and this application is liable to be
dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the records. Admittedly, a
summary judgment under Order 13A of CPC is akin to Order 12 Rule 6 of
CPC thereby meaning that a summary judgment may be passed on the basis
of admission of the facts in pleadings or otherwise. However, striking of
defense to file WS does not mean admission of facts and rather absence of
filing of WS is like ex-parte case in which the plaintiff has to prove all
facts. However, in case of striking of defense, opposite party has right to
conduct cross-examination of witness to check veracity despite having no
defense. Similarly, merely filing of documents does not prove authenticity
of documents and rather the plaintiff has to prove those documents
accordance with law, irrespective of defense of the defendants.
CS (Comm) No. 127/2024
Raj Kumar Kapil Vs. Antram Fisheries & Ors. 2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court has considered consequences of not filing
of WS, or absence of specific denial of facts under Order 8 Rule 5A of CPC
viz-z-viz judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC in case
titled
Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396 and relevant
observations are as under:
7. Order 8 Rule 1 provides that the defendant shall file a written
statement of his defence. It is further provided by Rule 3 of Order 8
that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to
deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant
must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does
not admit the truth. The further requirement as set out in Rule 4 is that
if the allegation made in the plaint is denied by the defendant, the
denial must not be evasive. It is, inter alia, provided in Rule 5 of Order
8 that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or
by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the written
statement, shall be taken to be admitted.
9. The scheme of this rule is largely dependent upon the filing or non-
filing of the pleading by the defendant. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
provides that any fact stated in the plaint, if not denied specifically or
by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading
of the defendant, shall be treated as admitted. Under Rule 3 of Order
8, it is provided that the denial by the defendant in his written
statement must be specific with reference to each allegation of fact
made in the plaint. A general denial or an evasive denial is not treated
as sufficient denial and, therefore, the denial, if it is not definite,
positive and unambiguous, the allegations of facts made in the plaint
shall be treated as admitted under this rule.
10. The proviso appended to this rule is important in the sense that
though a fact stated in the plaint may be treated as admitted, the court
may, in its discretion, still require such “admitted fact” to be proved
otherwise than by such admission. This is an exception to the general
rule of evidence that a fact which is admitted need not be proved.
21. There is yet another provision under which it is possible for the
court to pronounce judgment on admission. This is contained in Rule
6 of Order 12 which provides as under:
“6. Judgment on admissions.—(1) Where admissions of fact have
been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in
writing, the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application
CS (Comm) No. 127/2024
Raj Kumar Kapil Vs. Antram Fisheries & Ors. 3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
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.”
22. This rule was substituted in place of the old rule by the Code of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. The Objects and Reasons for
this amendment are given below:
“Under Rule 6, where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to
enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on the admitted
claim. The object of the rule is to enable a party to obtain a speedy
judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which, according to the
admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. The rule is wide
enough to cover oral admissions. The rule is being amended to clarify
that oral admissions are also covered by the rule.”
23. Under this rule, the court can, at an interlocutory stage of the
proceedings, pass a judgment on the basis of admissions made by the
defendant. But before the court can act upon the admission, it has to
be shown that the admission is unequivocal, clear and positive. This
rule empowers the court to pass judgment and decree in respect of
admitted claims pending adjudication of the disputed claims in the
suit.
24. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum [AIR 1958 SC 886 :
1959 SCR 1111] it was held that Order 12 Rule 6 has to be read along
with the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8. That is to say, notwithstanding
the admission made by the defendant in his pleading, the court may
still require the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the
plaint.
25. Thus, in spite of admission of a fact having been made by a party
to the suit, the court may still require the plaintiff to prove the fact
which has been admitted by the defendant. This is also in consonance
with the provisions of Section 58 of the Evidence Act which provides
as under:
“58. Facts admitted need not be proved.—No fact need be proved in
any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit
at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by
any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in
force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
CS (Comm) No. 127/2024
Raj Kumar Kapil Vs. Antram Fisheries & Ors. 4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts
admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.”
26. The proviso to this section specifically gives a discretion to the
court to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
admission. The proviso corresponds to the proviso to Rule 5(1) Order
8 CPC.
6. After going through this law, it stands proved that judgment on
admission is not automatic in absence of filing of WS and rather the
court may ask the plaintiff to prove facts of plaint despite not filing of
WS by the defendants. In fact, absence of filing of WS may not be
considered entitlement of the plaintiff to get summary judgment/
judgment on admission and still court may ask to prove those facts in
terms of
the proviso to Rule 5(1) Order 8 CPC. Accordingly, I am of the
considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for summary
judgment / judgment on admission under Order 13A of CPC or Order 12
Rule 6 of CPC, hence application dismissed.
7. However, observations of this court shall not affect the merit of this
case.
(Devender Kumar)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
East District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi/11.02.2026
CS (Comm) No. 127/2024
Raj Kumar Kapil Vs. Antram Fisheries & Ors. 5/5
-- 5 of 5 --