Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Yashoda vs Satya Narain Chaudhary on 9 March, 2017

      IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN K. KASHYAP,
  Judge Small Cause Court-Addl. Senior Civil Judge-
Gurdian Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court,
                    NEW DELHI

CS. No: 58000/2016 (Old No. 311/2015)

Yashoda                                              ...Plaintiff

                   Versus

Satya Narain Chaudhary                               ...Defendant


      Suit for Recovery of Sum of Rs.1,80,000/= alonwith
                pendentelite and future interest


Date of Institution of the case :           22/12/2015
Date of decision                :           09/03/2017.
Decision                        :           Suit Partly Decreed.



          JUDGMENT UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC


1.

This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 1,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from 15.12.2014.

2. In nutshell, as per the case of plaintiff, the defendant Satya Narayan Chaudhary approached her in search of plot for Rs. 6,00,000/-. And plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant. Ultimately, defendant failed to arrange such flat for plaintiff. As such, plaintiff asked for his money back. But despite several letters and complaints, the defendant paid back to plaintiff CS No-58000/16 Yashoda vs. Satya narain Chaudhary Page 1 of 4 only Rs. 1,20,000/- on 15.12.2014 and further agreed to pay remaining Rs. 1,80,000/- in installment. But did not pay the such balance despite acknowledgment. As such, plaintiff filed present suit for recovery of money.

3. The defendant appeared in this case and filed a WS dt. 18.03.2016. In para no. 3 he did not deny that he received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from plaintiff. Further, in para no. 4 of such WS, in any case the defendant admitted that he has already paid back a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the plaintiff.

4. In view of such position, the counsel for plaintiff has moved an application U/o. 12 Rule 6 CPC praying that a decree to the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant on admission in such WS (i.e. Rs. 3 lakh minus Rs. 1,60,000/-).

5. Despite opportunity given, the defendant failed to give any reply to such application nor he addressed arguments on the same. As such arguments were heard from plaintiff side and matter was put up for order for today.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff in detail and have carefully gone through the record.

7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as under :-

"6. Judgment on admission. - (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 given 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."

(emphasis added)

8. In the judgment titled as "Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan" reported as AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2765, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

".......In fact, Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. In the present case, looking at the terms of lease deed, there can be no two opinions that the tenancy was joint /composite and not individual one. Therefore, on these admitted facts the view taken by learned single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and others, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 120. Their Lordships have held as follows:

"In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending Rule 6 of Order 12, CPC it is stated that 'where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on CS No-58000/16 Yashoda vs. Satya narain Chaudhary Page 3 of 4 admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable to the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled."......"

9. Adverting to the facts of the present case the defendant has admitted, as stated above, in his WS that he received a sum of Rs. 3 lakh from plaintiff, but as per the claim of defendant he has already paid back Rs. 1,60,000/- to the plaintiff. As such it can be concluded that in any case, as also submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, the defendant has admitted his outstanding liability atleast to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/- against the claim of plaintiff of Rs. 1,80,000/- in present suit.

RELIEF

10. In view of such factual position and admission in present case, a decree of recovery of money of Rs. 1,40,000/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. The suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in these terms Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Costs shall be determined at the time of final disposal of the entire suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

Announced in the open Court on 9th March, 2017 (This judgment contains 4 pages) (NAVEEN K. KASHYAP) ASCJ-cum-JSCC-GJ, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.