State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others vs Abdul Majid Bhat and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Petitioners, by the medium of these revision petitions, have questioned orders dated 20.05.2006,27.12.20.06

and 15.02.2007 passed in learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in Civil Suit titled Abdul Majid Bhat and Ors. v. State and Ors. for short

the impugned orders, on the grounds taken in the revision petitions.

It appears that plaintiffs-respondents herein filed a suit for recovery of money. Petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 filed written statement. The

petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 have admitted in para-3 of their written statement that Rs. 3,39,743/- is due to plaintiffs 1 to 3. It is apt to

reproduce para 2(a) and 3 of the written statement heroin:

(a) That the said para is partly admitted and it is submitted that the work was allotted to plaintiff No. 1 who executed the same to the tune of Rs.

2,91,200.00, and the whole work executed at Iqbal Park vide NIT (01) is under investigation of Director General Tourism appointed by

Government as enquiry officer vide Government order No. 86-TSM of 2002 dated: 08.07.02, the rest of the para based on allegations is denied.

That the contents of the said para are denied and it is submitted as under:

That the Department owes an amount of Rs. 291200.00 to plaintiff No. 1. Rs. 26000.00 to plaintiff No. 2. Rs. 22,543.00 to plaintiff No. 3 and

Rs. nil to plaintiff No. 4. Thus the department owes a total amount of Rs. 3,39,743/- for their works, with regard to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and there is

nothing outstanding with respect to plaintiff No. 4 as alleged by the said plaintiff hence the para is accordingly replied. It is further submitted that the

plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest as claimed since there is no fault on the part of the answering defendants as the payments will be made as

and when funds are available.

After noticing the reply, respondents moved an application for passing Judgment on admission. The said application came to be disposed of vide

order dated 20th of May, 2006. The trial court instead of passing judgment in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, for short CPC,

directed the defendants- petitioners herein to submit status report in terms of the reply. Thereafter, vide order dated 27th of December, 2006

directed the defendants-petitioners to deposit Rs. 2,91,200/- within 15 days. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants questioned both the orders by the

medium of revision petition No. 29/2007. It also appears that vide order dated 15 February, 2007 Treasury Officer was directed to attach the

account of defendants-petitioners-impugned is revision petition No. 32/2007.

The short question involved in these petitions is whether the impugned orders are legally correct or otherwise?

5.I am of the considered view that the trial court has fallen in error while passing the impugned orders. It is crystal clear that trial court has not

followed the mandate of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The trial court, virtually, without passing the decree has directed the petitioners-defendants to

deposit the amount of Rs. 2,91,200/- thereby has converted the suit into execution proceedings. It is apt to reproduce Order 12 Rule-6 of CPC

herein:

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 part 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.

The trial court was under legal obligation to examine the pleadings of the parties and thereafter to satisfy whether the defendants have admitted

the claim in full or part and to pass judgment on admission in terms of Order 12 Rule-6 of CPC.

In the given circumstances, the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside. The trial court is directed to hear the

parties afresh and pass appropriate order/judgment/decree while keeping in view the mandate of Order 12 of CPC within one month from today.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 11.08.2008.

Registry to send clown the record today along with a copy of this order.

Disposed of.