Delhi District Court
Sh. Praveen Kumar vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 19 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No.38/14
Unique Identification No. 02402C0048522014
Sh. Praveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Chatter Sain,
Proprietor of M/s Parveen & Co.
E-127, Ashok Gali, East Babarpur, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
......Plaintiff
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner,
Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area,
Patparganj, Delhi-110092.
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 13.02.2014
Arguments heard on : 04.03.2015
Date of decision : 19.03.2015
ON APPLICATION U/O XII R 6 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff preferred this suit for recovery of Rs. 3,78,702/- against the defendant on the premise that he is the sole proprietor of his firm M/s. Parveen & Company and is a registered contractor with the defendant and was carrying on civil work on acceptance of tender by the defendant. He was awarded a work contract in the month of November 2011 for C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 1 of 9 improvement of class room in Blin Block on ground floor and glazed tiles in Rajeev Nagar, Delhi vide work order No. EE(M- SH.N.-IV)/SYS/2011-2012/176 dated 25.11.2011, FTC No. 010/061/89/1077/PC/781/09/0269/M-IV/III, Tender No.121611 for contractual amount of Rs.4,01,840/-. The plaintiff completed the assigned/awarded work to the satisfaction of the defendant within the requisite period of four months and submitted the bills of Rs.3,78,702/-. Even after submission of the bill for the work done and acceptance of the same by the defendant, the defendant failed to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 05.10.2013 through Sh. Saroj Kumar Jha, Advocate asking the defendant to pay the said amount of Rs.3,78,702/- with interest @ 24% but of no avail and hence the present suit. The plaintiff claimed the principal amount of Rs.3,78,702/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of suit and cost of the suit.
2. In its second written statement filed on 26.11.2014, the defendant, inter-alia, pleaded that they had approved a gross sum of Rs.3,78,702/- against the bill raised by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,78,702/- on account of the work done and security money and submitted the same to the headquarter to release the funds to him. However, no fund has been made available from the headquarter. They will release the payment immediately on availability of the funds. The plaintiff is not entitled for any interest as the defendant has already passed a C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 2 of 9 bill for a gross amount of Rs.3,78,702/-.
3. On 10.2.2015 the plaintiff filed an application u/o XII rule 6 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as "the Code") for passing a judgment and decree on the basis of admission of the defendant. Despite opportunity, the defendant neither filed any reply to this application nor argued the same.
4. The plaintiff has placed on record photostat copies of the sanction order for hiring trucks with auto-lifting including driver, Log Book and Bills, etc. He also placed on record copy of legal notice dated 5.10.2013 issued on his behalf by his counsel u/s 80 of the Code which was served upon the defendant on 10.10.2013. He has also filed track record of the service of notice upon the defendant.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and very carefully perused the material available on record.
6. It has been 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 bill for Rs.3,78,702/- and not only the receiving of bill but also the passing of the same has been admitted by the defendant in its written statement and the suit of the plaintiff should be decreed on the basis of admission of the defendant in its pleadings. On the other hand, none appeared C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 3 of 9 on behalf of the defendant to argue on application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. However, defendant submitted in its written statement that the bill has been sent to the headquarter for release of funds to the plaintiff but no funds were made available from the headquarter.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.
Statutory Provisions
8. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of law i.e. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code and Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act which run as under:
"ORDER XII ADMISSIONS ***
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."
"58. Facts admitted need not be proved.- No fact need to 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 of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 4 of 9 facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions."
Object and scope
9. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is enacted for the purpose of expediting 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.
10. The scope of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code has been elucidated in case State Bank of India Vs. M/s Midland Industries AIR 1988 Delhi 153 wherein High Court of Delhi observed that :
"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 party invoking it. It is not in each case C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 5 of 9 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 go 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."
11. In case of Smt. Sudesh Madhok & Anr. vs. M/s Lunar Diamonds Limited and Ors. (2012) X AD Delhi 99, it has been held by High Court of Delhi that the object of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code 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.
12. In case of Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. 2011 (7) Scales 566 the Apex Court held that admission should be categorical and conscious and deliberate act of the party showing an intention to be bound by it. It observed that:
"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 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 C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 6 of 9 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."
13. In case of SCJ Plastics Ltd. vs. Creative Wares Ltd., 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 447 High Court of Delhi held that object of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code 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. It relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and Anr. MANU/SC/0417/1973 wherein in was held that:
"From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the 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."
14. In case of Uttam Singh Duggal vs. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2740 the Apex Court observed that:
C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 7 of 9"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
15. Now while coming to the facts of the present case, the defendant in its written statement has not denied having awarded a contract to the plaintiff for improvement of a class room in Blin Block on ground floor and glazed tiles in Rajeev Nagar, Delhi. The defendant has also admitted about submitting of the bill for Rs.3,78,702/-. By pleading that it has passed a bill for a gross amount of Rs.3,78,702/- and sending the same in demand in the accounts department for payment, the defendant has admitted the claim of Rs.3,78,702/- of the plaintiff. In view of this clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission of the defendant in its written statement, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.3,78,702/- in his favour and against the defendant under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code.
16. The issue with regard to entitlement of awarding of C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 8 of 9 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 this 19th Day of March, 2015 (Dr. T. R. Naval) District & Sessions Judge Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi.
C.S. No.38/14 Praveen Kumar vs. EDMC 19.03.2015 Page 9 of 9