AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] against the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned ADJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application filed by Petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC has been dismissed with a finding that there is no unequivocal admission by the Respondents/Defendants.
Briefly that facts are that the Petitioner (Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) filed a summary suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- on the basis of three cheques of Rs.30,00,000/- each, which were stated to have been issued for repayment of a loan received by the Respondents.
The Respondents (Defendants before the learned Trial Court) filed an Application for Leave to Defend. By an Order dated 12.03.2020, the Application for Leave to Defend of the Respondents was allowed by the learned Trial Court directing the Respondents to file its written statement, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount claimed i.e., Rs.45,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court [hereinafter referred to as “Order dated 12.03.2020”].
The Respondents challenged the Order dated 12.03.2020 before a Coordinate Bench of this Court by filing a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CM(M) 6/2022 captioned Mrs. Rashmi Anand & Anr. v. Sh. Dilip Kumar [hereinafter referred to as the “CM(M)”].
A Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.11.2023 dismissed the challenge to the Order dated 12.03.2020 and held that Order dated 12.03.2020 directing the Respondents to deposit 50% of the amount as claimed by the Petitioner, is justified and further directed that the pending amounts be deposited before the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
The order dated 07.11.2023 passed in CM(M) was then challenged by the Respondents before the Supreme Court. By an order dated 04.12.2023, the Supreme Court permitted the Respondents to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, reserving the right of the Respondents to approach the High Court for seeking a clarification of the order dated 07.11.2023 with respect to the extent of the amount to be deposited.
Subsequently, an Application dated 11.12.2023 seeking clarification of the order dated 07.11.2023 was filed by the Respondents which was listed as CM Application No. 64794 in the CM(M) [hereinafter referred to as “Application”]. By an order dated 14.12.2023 in the Application, the Coordinate Bench of this Court extended the time to make the deposit in terms of Order dated 12.03.2020 till 01.01.2024.
Pursuant thereto, the deposit was made by the Respondent, Written Statement was filed by the Respondents before the Trial Court.
Subsequently, an Application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was filed by the Petitioner seeking a judgement on the basis of the admissions made by the Respondents. This Application was decided by the Impugned
Order.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is an unequivocal, unambiguous and clear admission which has been made out by the Respondents in the Application which was filed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the Respondents have admitted and acknowledged the liability of Rs. 33,12,000/- as liability payable by the Respondents towards the Petitioner. Reliance is placed by the Petitioner on Para 7 of the Application in this behalf.
It is further submitted that the Respondents in the Written Statement filed before the learned Trial Court have admitted the liability towards the Petitioner in the sum of Rs.33,12,000/-, wherein it has been stated by the Respondents that the Respondents have made a payment of Rs. 56,88,000/-.
Thus, it is submitted that a judgement on admissions should have been passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents for the admitted liability.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents refutes the contentions of the Petitioner and submits that there is no admission on part of the Respondents and in fact it is the case of the Respondents that there have been no loan transactions between the Petitioner and the Respondents. It is submitted that the amounts that were advanced by the Petitioner were for other transactions which are unrelated to the transactions as alleged by the Petitioner.
By the Impugned Order learned Trial Court has dismissed the Application under Order XII Rule 6, CPC filed by the Petitioner and has held that there is no unambiguous or unequivocal admission on the part of the Respondents.
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC confers discretionary power to the Court to pass a judgment on the admissions of a party without waiting for a determination of all issues between the parties. It is settled law that these powers are discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right. It is apposite to set out the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar1 in this regard. The relevant extract of the Karan Kapoor case is set out below:
“23.Order 12 Rule 6 confers discretionary power to a court who “may” at any stage of the suit or suits on the application of any party or in its own motion and without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties makes such order or gives such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admission.
24.Thus, legislative intent is clear by using the word “may” and “as it may think fit” to the nature of admission. The said power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the court can refuse to invoke the power of Order 12 Rule 6. The said provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by the other, and the court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence. Therefore, to save the time and money of the court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute. As per above discussion, it is clear that to pass a judgment on admission, the court if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit. In case the judgment is pronounced by the court a decree be drawn accordingly and parties to the case is not required to go for trial.” [Emphasis Supplied]
In the case of Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. v. Daljit Singh2, the Supreme Court has held that that the discretion conferred under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant. It was further held that where the defendants have raised objections, which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The relevant extract of the Hari Steel case is reproduced below:
“25.In the judgment in Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. [Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., (2011) 15 SCC 273 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 376], nature and scope of Order 12 Rule 6 has been considered by this Court. In the aforesaid judgment this Court has held that the discretion conferred under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant. Para 11 of the judgment read as under : (SCC pp. 276-77)
“11.It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a clear “admission” which can be acted upon. (See also Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India [Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120] , Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust [Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 262] and Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha [Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha, (2010) 6 SCC 601 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 745] .) There is no such admission in this case.”
26.In the judgment in S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj [S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj, (2015) 9 SCC 287 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 589] , this Court has held that the power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right. It is further held in the aforesaid case that where the defendants have raised objections, which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Para 8 of the judgment read as under : (SCC p. 291)
“8.The words in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC “may” and “make such order …” show that the power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the court. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim.” [Emphasis Supplied]
It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have made an admission of liability towards the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 33,12,000/- in the Application.
A perusal of the Application shows that what the Respondents have stated in the Application is that the Petitioner in his reply to the CM(M) has stated that the amount of Rs. 56,88,000/- has not been given in the present transaction however the same cannot be equated with the fact that the Petitioner has not received the said amount. It is further stated that since the amount of Rs. 56,88,000/- has not been disputed by the Petitioner and the said amount has been transferred into the bank account of the Petitioner, the only balance amount which would remain in the suit would be Rs.33,12,000/- and 50% of the balance amount of the same shall be Rs.16,56,000/-. Paragraph 7 of the Application is reproduced below:
“7.That the petitioners preferred the SLP bearing no. 25969/2023 against the impugned order dated 7.11.2023. That the matter came up for hearing before honourable apex court on 4.12.2023. That during the consideration of the Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) it was observed that the order dated 7.11.2033 passed by this honourable court needs clarification regarding the amount which is to be deposited by petitioners after the orders passed by this honourable court. In this regard it is submitted that the respondent has filed the suit seeking the recovery of Rs 90 Lakhs from petitioners. That it has been stated by the petitioners in the petition alongwith all the details that the petitioners had already paid Rs 5688000/- to the respondent. That respondent in his reply to the petition has vaguely stated that said amount of Rs 56,88,000/- has not been given in the present transaction which cannot be equated with the respondent having not received the said amount. That however this honourable court has dismissed the petition considering that the petitioners had not mentioned the payment of Rs 5688000/- to respondent in leave to defend application filed before ld trial court. That since the above amount of Rs 56,88,000/ is not in dispute which even otherwise has been transferred by way of bank transfers, the only balance amount in the sun shall be Rs 3312000/- and 50% of the balance amount of the same shall be Rs 16,56,000/-. That petitioners has already deposited Rs 15,00,000/- as per order dated 4.1.2022 of Honourable High court. That in view of the above facts, it is needed to be clarified as to the extent of the amount to be deposited by the petitioners. That honourable supreme court while disposing of the SLP was please to grant liberty to petitioners to seek clarification in this regard from this honourable court. The copy of order dated 4.12.2023 is annexed as Annexure P2.” [Emphasis Supplied]
The Application was filed by the Respondent seeking clarification of the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in the CM(M) wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Respondents to deposit the remaining amount within two (2) weeks from the date of the order. The clarification which was sought by the Respondents was in regards to the quantum of the amount which has to be deposited by the Respondents before the learned Trial Court. In that regard, an averment was made by the Respondents in the Application indicating the amount which was already deposited by the Respondents.
As stated above, it is the case of the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court that Rs. 90,00,000/- was due, while the Respondent (Petitioner herein) has raised a defence that the payment was made in another transaction. Various other payments are referred to as well. Since, clearly the objections raised by the Respondents go to the root of the matter, it would not be appropriate to pass a judgment to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is limited. The Court is not required to examine the factual aspect of the matter, the Court only has power to see if the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested or has acted with illegal or material irregularity.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ambadas Khanduji Shinde & Ors. v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar & Ors.3 clarified that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to cases of illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. Under Section 115 of CPC, it is not open for the High Court to correct errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction. It has been held as follows:
“14.Apart from the factual aspect, order lacks merit on the ground of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent factual findings while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled law that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to cases of illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. Under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is not open for the High Court to correct errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction. In the facts on hand, the courts below have passed reasoned orders well within the jurisdiction conferred upon them. We arrive at the conclusion that the High Court committed error in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial court.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
As is stated above, the examination by this Court shows that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any irregularity which would merit interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. The pending Applications also stand closed.
The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order