Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 9 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR592
JUDGMENT N.K. Agrawal, J.
1. This is a revision petition by the plaintiff against the order dated 23rd September, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner-plaintiffs application under Order 12, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to the defendants to admit or deny the facts mentioned in the Annexure was rejected.
2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit challenging his termination from the post of Probationary Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The defendants produced certain records in the Court on an order from the trial Court. The plaintiff then moved an application under Order 12, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, for admission of the facts stated in the annexed notice. That was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has argued that the evidence of the plaintiff had not yet been recorded by the trial Court and it was, therefore, necessary to permit the plaintiff to seek from the defendant admission of the facts mentioned in the annexed notice. The case was fixed for the plaintiff s evidence on March 28, 1999. Application for admission of certain facts was filed by the plaintiff on that date. It was, therefore, within the scope of Order 12, Rule 4, that the application had been filed in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that notice for admission or denial of facts can be served on a party not later than nine days prior to the next date of hearing. In the present case, issues had been framed on May 26, 1995. The application for admission for denial was filed on March 28, 1998, i.e. three years after the framing of the issues. It was, therefore, not maintainable, it was at a highly belated stage that the application for admission or denial was filed.
The application in question was not filed by the plaintiff nine days prior to the next date of hearing. It was filed on March 29, 1998, which was the actual date for the plaintiffs evidence. The plaintiff did not produce the evidence on March 28, 1998 and instead he filed an application for admission of facts by the defendants. Thus, the provisions of Order 12, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, were not complied with.
5. In Balwant Singh Gill and Ors. v. Gurdev Singh Brar and Ors., A.I.R. 1980 P&H 139, it has been held that a party can file an application for admission of facts not later than nine days before the date fixed for hearing. That would mean that application must be filed in time. In case, the application is allowed to be filed by a party at any stage of the proceedings, the whole purpose of the rule would be frustrated.
6. On a consideration of the controversy, it is noticed that the plaintiff did not produce his evidence for long. Issues had been framed on May 26, 1995, but he failed to produce evidence for about three years. He moved the application on March 28, 1998 for admission or denial by the defendant. That was a date fixed for the plaintiff s evidence. The plaintiff, therefore, did not comply with the condition laid down in Order 12, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code.
7. The application for admission/denial of facts is, therefore, found to have not been filed according to law. It was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.