KULWANT KAUR Vs. SHABANA BAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by defendant No. 6. By the impugned order the trial Court has dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the present petitioner, defendant No.6, had admitted the claim the trial Court should have decreed the suit to that extent as provided under Order 9 Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) On perusal of the plaint it is revealed that the plaintiff had filed a suit claiming relief against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2. No relief was claimed against the present petitioner/defendant No.6. The scope and purport of Order 9 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure is to enable the trial Court to pass a decree with respect to such part of the suit, to the extent of which, the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff. For a decree to be passed on such admission, the suit must be brought against such defendant whose admission is a relevant consideration for passing a decree. Any admission by any other party to the suit, against whom no relief is claimed, would not entitled the trial Court to pass a decree allowing the suit even in the absence of plaintiff. If the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, in a given case, the plaintiff may implead a colluding defendant who will admit the claim of the plaintiff and thereafter on a given date of hearing the plaintiff would remain absent and on the basis of admission by colluding defendant the suit will be allowed to that extent.