THOMSON PRESS INDIA LIMITED Vs. MEGH AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6, although at the time of arguments Order VIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code was also pressed into support by learned counsel for the Plaintiff. It is prayed in the application that the suit be decreed since, in the Written Statement filed on behalf of Defendants 3 and 4, the statements of facts contained in the plaint have been admitted. Defendants 3 and 4 have filed a Reply to this application in which it has been submitted that the Written Statement should be read as a whole and that if so read it would not reveal any admission on their part. In support of this submission learned counsel for Defendants 3 & 4 relied on Dudh Nath Pandey (Dead By L.R's) V. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead by L. R's), AIR 1986 SC 1509. This case undoubtedly sets down the proposition canvassed by him. However, it has to be seen, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether in fact admissions have been made in the Written Statement of the averments contained in the plaint; Conversely whether the facts stated therein have not been categorically denied as envisaged in the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The relevant provisions of the Code are set out hereinbelow:

(2.) On a reading of the Written Statement as a whole it will be seen that the statements contained in the plaint have not been denied. Two grounds of defence can be extracted from the Written Statement even if it is read holistically. Firstly, that it "appears" that "this office", (presumably referring to Defendants 3 and 4), had not issued any printing order to the Plaintiff with effect from 17th draw onwards and secondly, that an agreement between Defendants 1 and 2 on the one part and Defendants 3 and 4 on the other, stipulated that the expenses, such as those covered by the claim in the suit, would be borne and incurred exclusively by Defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) In respect of the first defence, learned counsel for the Plaintiff has drawn my attention to a letter dated 7.10.1989 addressed to the plaintiff by Defendant No.1 placing orders of the printing of lotteries for 35 to 38th draw; and to another letter dated October 17, 1989, pertaining to the 39th to 42nd draw. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff also relied on the letter dated 14.3.1989 addressed on behalf of Defendants 3 and 4 to the Plaintiff. This letter notified the Plaintiff that M/s. Megh & Company, Defendant No.1, had been appointed as the organising agent for the lotteries by that Defendant, and that Defendant No.1 was permitted to lift the printed tickets subject to certain conditions which are reproduced below: