At, High Court of Orissa
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
For the Petitioners: Ramakant Mohanty, D. Mohanty, S. Mohanty, D.Varadwaj, A. Mohanty & S.N. Biswal, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: Gautam Mishra & D.K. Patra, Advocates.
1. The Order Dated 04.01.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.198 of 2008 of the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Rourkela is in question in this case.
2. An application was filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) to pronounce the Judgment on the admissions made by the Defendant in the written statement. The Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) came to the conclusion that a Judgment & decree in respect of the admitted claim pending adjudication of dispute in the suit can be passed but the admission must be unequivocal, clear & positive. However, the factual finding of the Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) is that the Defendants are denying the assertions of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, he rejected the application for amendment.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued extensively referring to the pleadings of the parties & stated that the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) is factually incorrect. Such being the case, this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not go into the questions of fact to re-appreciate the matter & the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted only on the question of fact. According to him there has been admission of the case of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners by the Defendants-Opp. Parties. Relying on the reported case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 this Court is not inclined to entertain any submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners on the factual aspects of the case.
4. Moreover, it is seen that even when there has been admission on the part of the Defendants, the Court is not under compulsion to pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs. This is evident from the reported case of Balraj Taneja & another Vs. Sunil Madan & anr, AIR 1999 SC 3381. In the reported case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took into consideration the provision of Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code as it stands now after the amendment, 1976 & held that the Court can, at interlocutory stage of proceeding, pass a Judgment on the basis of admissions made by the Defendant. The Apex Court further held that before the Court can act upon the admission, it has to be shown that admission is unequivocal, clear & positive. It further held that this rule empowers the Court to pass Judgment & decree in respect of the admitted claim pending adjudication of the disputed claim in the suit. In that reported case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further took note the case of Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886 wherein it was held that Order 12 Rule 6 has to be read along with Rule 5 of Order 8 of the Code. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that not withstanding the admission made by the Defendant in his pleadings, the Court may still require the Plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint. Thus, holding the Supreme Court ruled in spite of admission of fact having been made by a party to the suit, the Court may still require the Plaintiff to prove the fact, which has been admitted by the Defendant. The Supreme Court further held that this is also in consonance with the provisions of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
5. In view of such clear cut leg
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
al position, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no need to interfere with the findings recorded by the Learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Rourkela in the aforesaid suit & it need not be set aside. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit & the same is dismissed. Pending Misc. Cases are disposed of as infructuous. Writ Petition dismissed.