Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The Corporation, thus, submitted that insofar as the security deposit is concerned, the same is not liable to be refunded until payment of final bills and compliance of conditions contained in Clause 45.

10. In view of the stand of the Corporation, an application Order XII Rule 6 was filed. On 11th February 2016, the Trial Court decreed the suit for the principal sum of Rs.7,66,020/- in the following terms:

"14. Since the outstanding payment of amount of first and final bill of Rs. 7,66,020/- stands admitted in unequivocal, unambiguous, unqualified terms by defendant in favour of plaintiff, so far that is concerned, the plaintiff is entitled for judgment on admissions. Plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of sum of Rs. 7,66,020/- in his favour and against the defendant under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

4. Appeals are accordingly disposed of."

3. These appeals are therefore also disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.9.2017 passed in RFA Nos. 835/2017, 836/2017 and 837/2017 decided on 27.9.2017.

4. RFAs stand disposed of accordingly."

For the sake of convenience, this order would be referred as „Order No.4'.

20. A summary of all the above mentioned 4 orders shows that each of the orders is based on Order No.1 of 1st December, 2016. The said order i.e. Order No.1 has the following unique features:

Order XII Rule 6

62. Further reliance has also been placed on a number of orders in respect of Order XII Rule 6 and as to when a decree on admission can be passed. In the present case, no oral evidence is actually required to be adduced. The awarding of the contract is not disputed. The execution of the contract is not disputed. The final bill having been passed by the Engineer-in-Charge is not disputed. What is disputed is the time when the payment is to be made. This is only a matter of interpretation of the Clauses of the General Conditions of Contract. In cases where there are factual disputes, evidence can be led to adjudicate those facts. However, in the present cases, there being no factual dispute and only a question of application of the Clauses of the General Conditions of Contract and their interpretation is involved, the approach of the Trial Court in applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC cannot be faulted.

63. It is the settled position in law, even in the authorities cited by the Corporation that when the pleadings are clear, they constitute admission. A reading of the written statement shows that the Corporation does not seriously dispute the passing of the final bills and the amount of Security deposited. Only the interest component is seriously disputed.

64. As per Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273 cited by the Corporation, the test for the invoking of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC being that the admission so made must clear and unequivocal, on the face of which it is impossible for the party making it to succeed. In the light of the stand in the written statement, there is a clear admission as to the final bill amount as also that the Contractor has to wait in a queue. Thus the Trial Court has rightly invoked the provisions of Order XII Rule 6.