M/S J.J.S. Trading Co v. M/S Parbir Food Stuff Factory and Others

Order XII Rule 6. Th with intent that if adm admitted by other, a nature of admission, for full-fledged trial a directed without takin the time and money o the said provision ha per above discussion, on admission, the Co at any stage of the pronounced by the Co and parties to the cas etitioner. The judgment relied up etitioner in the case of Uttam Sin ays down that where a claim nter a judgment for the plaintiff n the present case the stand taken was a compromise. The comprom er. However, on the other hand p be treated as an admission of d under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC fo the case of Karan Kapoor 567] has held as under : e intent is clear by using the w may think fit' to the nature power is discretionary which sho en specific, clear and categori ts and documents are on reco can refuse to invoke the power he said provision has been brou mission of facts raised by one sid and the Court is satisfied to then the parties are not compel and the judgment and order can ng any evidence. Therefore, to s of the Court and respective part as been brought in the statute. , it is clear that to pass a judgm ourt if thinks fit may pass an or e suit. In case the judgment ourt a decree be drawn accordin se is not required to go for trial. pon ngh m is n by mise part or a Vs. word of ould ical ord, r of ught de is lled n be ave ties, As ment rder t is

¶8has to be that the p

XXX XXX

¶18On the issue of di on admission, a three case of S.M. Asif

(2015) 9 SCC 287 use the word 'may' power under Order X and cannot be claime case, the suit for evic Landlord against relationship of tena period of Lease Agr resisted by the Defe property in question agreement and the ad The Defendant in cou denied that Respon the landlord after en suit for specific perf course was contested this Court was of th requires appreciation landlord and tenant c admission to decree CPC. Resultantly, t judgment passed by t back to the Trial Cou of the rent and the c of the suit premises. outcome of the evic performance." A perusal of the said judgme clear and unambiguous. Further ower under Order 12 Rule 6 CP XX XXX iscretion of Court to pass judgm e-Judge Bench of this Court in v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj made the legislative intent clear which clearly stipulates that XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretion ed as a matter of right. In the s ction was filed by the Responde the Appellant-Tenant. T ancy was admitted including reement. The Plaintiffs' claim w endant setting up a plea that n was agreed to be sold by dvance of Rs.82,50,000/- was pa urse of taking the defense stou ndent/Plaintiff has continued to ntering into Agreement to Sell. T formance was also filed which d by the Plaintiff. In the said ca he view that deciding such iss n of evidence. Mere relationship cannot be said to be an unequivo the suit under Order XII Rule 6 this Court by setting aside the High Court remitted the ma urt subject to deposit of the arre ompensation for use of occupat Such deposit was subject to fi ction as well as suit for spec ent clearly reveals that an admiss r, it has been held by their Lords PC is discretionary in nature. In ment – r to nary said ent-The was an aid. utly o be The h of ase, sues p of ocal 6 of tter ears tion final cific sion

present c Court fin Court. Th

¶9revision p any, also

22.05.202 Yogesh Sharm

ase the Trial Court has rightly ds no reason to interfere in the here is no illegality or irregularity In view of the above, I do petition which is accordingly d stand disposed off.

ma NOTE: Whether speaking/no y exercised its discretion and t e discretion exercised by the T y with the impugned order. not find any merit in the pres dismissed. Pending applications

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE on-speaking: Speaking

this Trial sent s, if

IN M/S J.J.S M/s Parbi CORAM Present : ALKA SA 1. the Cons (Annexur under Ord dismissed 2. petitioner that the d plaintiff-p that a sum statement written sta THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG . Trading Company Versus ir Food Stuff Factory & Ors. M : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advoc ARIN, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition stitution of India for setting a re P-6) whereby the applicatio der 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civ d. Brief facts relevant to the r herein filed a suit for recovery defendant-respondents used to p petitioner on credit basis vide di m of Rs.12,89,969/- was outst t was filed by the defendant-res atement read as under : "8. That the plaintiff h unclean hands and h NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CR-3139-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.05.202 ... Petitione s ... Responden E ALKA SARIN cate for the petitioner. has been filed under Article 227 aside the order dated 18.03.20 on filed by the plaintiff-petitio vil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has b present lis are that the plaint y of Rs.15,80,212/- on the grou purchase goods i.e. paddy from ifferent bills from time to time a tanding as on 24.08.2016. Writ spondents. Para Nos.8 and 9 of has come to the Hon'ble court w has concealed and suppressed r(s) nt(s) 7 of oner een tiff- und tten 3. 12 Rule 6 had been a judgmen to the ad applicatio was deny material facts from th entitled to any relief a on this score is liable t 9. That the undertakin Singh on behalf of his has been settled betwe the total amount will b plaintiff firm and out i.e. 20% amount wa plaintiff as per the said and it was mutually a be paid by the defenda of 2 years and in this by the plaintiff to the Now only remaining against the defendants within a period of 2 upon by both the part undertaking was given So, there is no liabil plaintiff for the amo plaintiff has wrongly amount from the defen to the plaintiff. As su dismissal on this score An application was filed by 6 read with Section 151 CPC on admitted by the defendant-respo nt on admission was required to dmitted amount of Rs.2,28,927 on. The stand taken was that on t ying the genuineness of the com e Hon'ble court, as such, he is against the defendants and the s to be dismissed. ng was given by the plaintiff Jag s firm to the effect that the ma een the parties as per which 40% be paid by the defendant firm to of that settled 40% amount its h as paid by the defendants to d undertaking given by the plain agreed that the remaining 20% w ants to the plaintiff within a per regard, an undertaking was gi e defendants on behalf of his fi 20% of the total amount is d s but the plaintiff has filed this s years which was mutually agr ties to the suit and in this rega n by the plaintiff as stated abo lity of the defendants towards ount as claimed in this suit. T and malafidely claimed the s ndants which is not payable by th uch the suit of the plaintiff me e." the plaintiff-petitioner under Or n the ground that part of the cla ondents in the written statement a be passed against them with reg /-. A reply was filed to the s the one hand the plaintiff-petitio mpromise/undertaking that only not suit, gtar tter % of half ntiff will riod ven irm. due suit reed ard, ove. The suit hem erits rder aim gard said oner amount o judgment impugned 4. in para 9 the defend on the bas his argum case of U (4) RCR 5. 6. was that a his firm to as per wh responden 40%, its h plaintiff-p was filed petitioner admission passed on specifical dispute an pointed qu the compr of Rs.2,28,927/- was due and on on the basis of admission. The d order dated 18.03.2024. Hence, Learned counsel for the plai of the written statement there is dant-respondents and hence the j sis of the admitted claim under O ments he has relied upon the judg Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd (Civil) 89]. I have heard the learned coun In the present case the stand an undertaking was given by the o the effect that the matter had b hich 40% of the total amount nts/firm to the plaintiff-appellan half i.e. 20% amount was