At, High Court of Karnataka
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA
For the Petitioner: S.V. Shastri, Advocate. For the Respondents: R5, R6 & R8, S.V. Giridhar, Advocate.
(Prayer: This W.P. filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed on I.A. No. 7 in O.S. No. 5079 of 2009 dated 23.4.2015 [wrongly typed as 23.3.2015] on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore vide Ann-F.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The order dated 23.4,2015 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.5079/2009 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore is called in question in the present petition.
3. Petitioner is the sole plaintiff in the said suit. He has filed a suit for relief of specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale stated to have been executed in favour of defendant No. 1-Partnership Firm represented by the remaining defendant Nos.2 to 9, who are the partners of the said firm.
4. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.2 has filed written statement, which according to plaintiff, is an admission of the claim made by plaintiff. Defendant No.8 has filed detailed written statement opposing the case of the plaintiff. He has called upon the plaintiff to strictly prove the contents of the plaint. Other defendants have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.8, On the basis of the alleged admission made by defendant No.2 in his written statement about 15% of share he is stated to be having in the suit schedule property, plaintiff had sought a judgment against defendant No.2 in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC.
5. Plaintiff chose to file an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC requesting to grant decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. The said application was objected by the remaining defendants and accordingly, it has been dismissed on 23.4.2015.
6. The learned counsel Sri.Shastri has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 2740. Paragraph 12 of the said decision is relevant and same is extracted below:
12. As to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, 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 rule, 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 admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable 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. 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.
Observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 11 of the said decision is equally important and same is extracted below:
11. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Order XII Rule 6 comes under the heading admissions and a judgment on admission could be given only after due opportunity to the other side to explain the admission, if any, made; that such admission should have been made only in the course of the pleadings or else the other side will not have an opportunity to explain such admission; that even though, the provision reads that the court may at any stage of the suit make such order as it thinks fit effect of admission, if any, can be considered only at the time of trial; that the admission even in pleadings will have to be read along with order VIII Rule 5(1) of CPC and Court need not necessarily proceed to pass an order or a judgment on the basis of such admission but call upon the party relying upon such admission to prove its case independently; that during pendency of other suits and the nature of contentions raised in the case, it would not be permissible at all to grant the relief before trial as has been done in the present case; that the expression admissions made in the course of the pleadings or otherwise will have to be read together and the expression otherwise will have to be interpreted ejusdem generis.
7. It is true that normally when there is admission in the written statement, court is bound to pass judgment in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. Here is a case in which defendant Nos.2 to 9 are the partners of the defendant No.1 Firm. There is a serious dispute between the partners interse i.e., defendant No.2 on the one hand and defendant Nos.3 to 10 on the other hand. The contents of the written statement filed by defendant No. 2 has been emphatically denied by the other defendants, who are partners and they have gone to the extent of stating that defendant No.2 has colluded with the plaintiff.
8. In the light of denial of the avermen
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t made by defendant No.2 to the fact that he has 15% share in the suit schedule property, decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is really distinguishable on facts. In fact, paragraph 11 of the said decision rendered in the case of Uttam Singh (stated supra) is a straight answer to the case of the plaintiff. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and clear observation made in the paragraph 11 of the decision rendered in the case of Uttam Singh, no merits are found. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.