Delhi District Court
Amarjeet Singh vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 3 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE: SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
C.S. No.179/13
Unique Identification No. 02402C0305192013
Amarjeet Singh
Having Office at :
Ashish Corporate Tower,
5th Floor, No.507508,K.K.D.,
Community Centre, Delhi. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner,
Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi110092.
2. The Executive Engineer, MIV
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Shahdara, North Zone,
Keshav Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi. .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 19.09.2013
Arguments heard on : 26.02.2014
Date of decision : 03.03.2014
On Application u/o XII rule 6 CPC
Suit for Recovery of Money
JUDGEMENT :
1. The plaintiff has preferred this suit for recovery of Rs.6,43,824/ against the defendants on the premises that he has been a contractor Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 1 of 10 and has executed the assigned work under contract with the defendants for removal of silt from the drains to the extent of 1842 MT and for its dumping at SLF Gazipur in two phases from 22.9.2010 to 28.9.2010 and from 15.6.2011 to 17.9.2011 and after completion of both the works, the plaintiff submitted his bills with the defendants on 2.10.2010 and 25.09.2011 respectively for a sum of Rs.1,22,520/ and Rs.3,67,080/ totaling Rs.4,89,600/. The plaintiff made several requests to make the payment and ultimately he got issued a legal notice dated 9.4.2013 through his counsel to the defendants which was served upon the defendants on 10.4.2013 but of no avail and hence the present suit. The plaintiff claims the principal amount of Rs.4,89,600/ and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of completion of work i.e. Rs.1,54,224/ totaling to Rs.6,48,824/.
2. In their joint written statement the defendants have taken a preliminary objection that the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 477/478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. On merits, it is pleaded that the bills of Rs.1,22,520/ and Rs.3,67,080 totaling Rs.4,89,600/ have been prepared in M.B. No.18438 at page no. 9 and 11 which have been forwarded to the then AE/JE and at present there is no hindrance for passing the bill and sending the same in demand in accounts department for payment and that the payment shall be made in turn. Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 2 of 10
3. On 5.2.2014 the plaintiff filed an application u/o XII rule 6 read with 151 CPC for passing a judgment and decree on the basis of admission of the defendants. Despite opportunity, the defendants did not file any reply to this application.
4. The plaintiff has placed on record photostat copies of the sanction order for hiring trucks with autolifting including driver, Log Book and Bills, etc. He also placed on record copy of legal notice dated 9.4.2013 issued on his behalf by the counsel u/s 477/478 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which was served upon the defendant no.1 personally on 10.4.2013 and bears original stamp and initials and signatures of official of the defendant No.1. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has admitted at the Bar that the receipt on this notice is of the office of the defendant no.1 Corporation.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and and very carefully perused the material available on record.
6. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has executed the work assigned to him by the defendant Corporation as per the contract and accordingly the plaintiff submitted two bills for Rs.1,22,520/ and Rs.3,67,080 dated 2.10.2010 and 25.09.2011 respectively and not only the receiving of bills but also the passing of the same has been admitted by the defendants in their joint written Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 3 of 10 statement and the suit of the plaintiff should be decreed on the basis of admission of the defendants in their pleadings. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendants submitted that the bills have been sent to the accounts department for making payment to the plaintiff which is taking time.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.
Statutory Provisions
10. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of law i.e. Order XII Rule 6 CPC which is reproduced 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."
Object and scope
11. Order XII Rule 6 CPC is enacted for the purpose of expediting Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 4 of 10 the trial; if there is any admission on behalf of the defendant or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court to deliver a speedy judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim. However, a judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court and is neither mandatory nor it is peremptory. This rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making it, to succeed.
12. The scope of Order XII rule 6 CPC has been elucidated by our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Bank of India Vs. M/s Midland Industries AIR 1988 Delhi 153 in the following words :
"There is no doubt that Rule 6 of Order XII has been couched in a very wide language. However, before a court can act under Rule 6, admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Furthermore a judgment on admission by the defendant under Order XII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the court, no doubt such discretion has to be judicially exercised. If a case involves questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of or a motion under this rule the court is free to refuse exercising discretion in favour of the Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 5 of 10 party invoking it. It is not in each case where order XII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is invoked that the court would be obliged to pass a decree which case would depend upon its own peculiar facts. Where the defendants have raised objections which to to the very root of the case, it would not be proper to exercise this discretion and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The purpose of Order XII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is to avoid waiting by the plaintiff for part of the decree when there is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission of the defendant in respect of the claim of the defendant. The rule only secures that if there is no dispute between the parties, and if there is on the pleadings or otherwise such an admission as to make it plain that the plaintiff is entitled to a particular order or judgment he should be able to obtain it at once to the extent of admission."
13. While dealing with the scope of order XII rule 6 CPC, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. 2011 (7) Scales 566 that admission should be categorical and conscious and deliberate act of the party showing an intention to be bound by it and relevant Para (9) of the judgment reads as under :
"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 Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 6 of 10 making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order XII rule 6 CPC 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 Defendants, 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 clear 'admission' which can be acted upon."
14. The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC has also recently been explained by our own Hon'ble High Court in Scj Plastics Ltd. vs. Creative Wares Ltd., 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 447 and it has been held that object of Order XII rule 6 CPC is that in appropriate cases litigations should not continue unnecessarily once it is found that there are categorical admissions and judicial process cannot be abused to delay the matter. Our Hon'ble High Court has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and Anr. MANU/SC/0417/1973 and relevant Para 27 reads as under :
"From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 7 of 10 principle that emerges is, that if as the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape of either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement, itself. Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible u/s 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made foundation of the rights of the parties."
15. In Smt. Sudesh Madhok & Anr. vs. M/s Lunar Diamonds Limited and Ors. (2012) X AD Delhi 99, it has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court that the object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to ensure that there should not be prolongation of litigation once the main ingredients of cause of action with respect to passing of a decree are found to be admitted in pleadings or otherwise. Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 8 of 10
16. Further while dealing with the object and scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Uttam Singh Duggal vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0485/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 2740 in the following words :
"As to the object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rules, it is stated "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of relief to which according to the admission of the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled". We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule, as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
Adjudication on merits
17. Now while coming to the facts of the present case, the defendants in their written statement have not denied having awarded a contract to the plaintiff for lifting of silt and dumping of the same at Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 9 of 10 SLF Gazipur. They have also admitted about submitting of both the said bills for Rs.1,22,520/ and Rs.3,67,080 dated 2.10.2010 and 25.09.2011 respectively totaling Rs.4,89,600/ as also preparation of M.B. No. 18438 at page no.9 and 11 which have been forwarded by the then AE/JE. By pleading that there is no hindrance in passing the bill and sending the same in demand in the accounts department for payment, the defendants have admitted the claim of Rs.4,89,600/ of the plaintiff. In view of this clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission of the defendants in their written statement, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.4,89,600/ in his favour and against the defendant no.1 u/o XII rule 6 CPC. The issue with regard to entitlement of awarding of interest on the principal amount is a matter of trial and the same shall be adjudicated after adducing of evidence by the parties. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open Court
on 3rd March, 2014 (Vinod Goel)
District & Sessions Judge
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi.
Amarjeet Singh vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation C.S. No.179/13 Decided on 03.03.2014 Page 10 of 10