Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: :: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS SHAIL JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 233/2023
Subodh Gupta
Proprietor of M/s Jay Ambay Industries
Through AR Mr. Aayush Gupta ...Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Mamta Aggarwal
Proprietor of M/s Mamta Creations. ...Defendant
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/O XII RULE 6 CPC
1. Vide this Order, I shall dispose of an application under
Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC moved by plaintiff for
passing judgment on the basis of admission made by the
defendant in her written statement.
2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of
Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant stating that there were friendly
relations between the plaintiff, his wife and defendant. The
defendant was in urgent need of funds for her business and
requested the plaintiff and his wife for the same. Considering the
said request, wife of plaintiff Ms. Rekha Gupta had paid a sum of
Rs.35,00,000/- (Rs.20,00,000/- on 18.12.2017 and Rs.15,00,000/-
on 25.06.2018). The remaining Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by
plaintiff to the defendant on 25.06.2018, being proprietor of M/s
CS No. 233/2023 Subodh Gupta vs. Mamta Aggarwal Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
:: 2 ::
Jay Ambay Industries. Thereafter, defendant had issued 8
cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each, which on presentation got
dishonoured. Legal notice was issued to the defendant but of no
avail. Plaintiff has filed complaints under Section 138 of N.I. Act
including CC no. 714/2021 titled “M/s Jay Ambay Industries vs.
Mamta Creations” qua cheque issued in favour of plaintiff.
Hence, the plaintiff has filed present suit for recovery of
Rs.5,00,000/-. Summons of the suit was served on the defendant
and written statement was filed by the defendant denying therein
the claim of the plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff filed an application
under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC stating therein that
defendant in her written statement has admitted friendly relations
between the parties and in para 19 of the written statement has
clearly admitted that she issued cheques for the entire amount in
the name of proprietorship concern of plaintiff. It is stated that
since there is categorical, unequivocal and unambiguous
admission made by the defendant in her written statement,
present application should be allowed and decree on admission
may be passed.
3. Reply to above said application has not been filed on
behalf of defendant.
4. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that, in view of the
admission of the defendant, in her written statement, with regard
to claim of the plaintiff and issuance of 8 cheques in favour of
proprietorship concern of plaintiff, a decree be passed. On the
other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant has submitted that there is
CS No. 233/2023 Subodh Gupta vs. Mamta Aggarwal Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
:: 3 ::
no admission on the part of defendant, thus judgment can not be
passed.
5. Rule 6 of Order XII reads 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 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.”
6. I have considered submissions made by Ld. Counsels for
both the parties, contents of the application and pleadings of the
parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has heavily relied upon para
19 of the written statement wherein the defendant has allegedly
admitted claim of the plaintiff and issuance of cheque for
discharge of her liability towards the plaintiff. Said paragraph is
reproduced hereinunder :-
“19. That the contents of para no. 19 need no reply being
matter of record.”
8. From perusal of para 19 of the written statement, no
admission of claim of the plaintiff can be inferred. In
corrosponding para 19 of the plaint, it is mentioned that a
complaint case no. 1714/2021 titled as M/s Jay Ambay Industries
CS No. 233/2023 Subodh Gupta vs. Mamta Aggarwal Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
:: 4 ::
vs Mamta Creations has been preferred by the plaintiff for
dishonour of his cheque and same is pending in the Court of Ld.
M.M., East. In the entire written statement, defendant has
nowhere admitted the claim of plaintiff except the fact that
plaintiff’s wife has business relationship with the defendant being
one of her old customers. It has nowhere been unequivocally or
specifically admitted by the defendant that the amount claimed
was due to the plaintiff from the defendant. The claim of the
plaintiff has been denied by the defendant in entirety. From
perusal of written statement and especially para no. 19 of the
written statement, it cannot be considered that defendant has
anywhere admitted the claim of the plaintiff either fully or in
part. The admission of business relationship and pendency of
criminal complaint for dishonour of cheque cannot be said to be
an admission for claim of plaintiff so as to pass decree under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no
ground is made out for allowing the aforesaid application, as
there is no clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional
admission of the defendant in respect to claim of the plaintiff in
the written statement filed on behalf of defendant.
9. In view of my foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the
application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Same is accordingly
dismissed.
Announced in the open court (SHAIL JAIN)
today on 20th July, 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge
East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No. 233/2023 Subodh Gupta vs. Mamta Aggarwal Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --