SUDESH GARG Vs. DIPENDAR KUMAR SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgement of the Trial Court dated 18.3.2010 decreeing the suit for recovery of money under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The suit for recovery has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC as the verification of the written statement was found to be defective as therein the paragraphs of the written statement were found to be verified both on knowledge and belief instead of only on knowledge. The relevant portion of the impugned judgement reads as RFA No. 366/2010 Page 1 of 5 under:

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of 9,44,104/- along with interest @12% per annum on the ground that various jewelleries were purchased by the appellant/ defendant. It was pleaded that since the amounts for the purchases were not made, the subject RFA No. 366/2010 Page 3 of 5 suit for recovery had to be filed. The appellant/defendant contested the suit and denied that, the same were paid on the spot either by cash or cheque. The liability with respect to the suit amount was denied. The parties are related to each other.

(3.) A reference to the impugned judgement shows that vital issues of entitlement of monies for goods supplied have been decided in a very cursory way, by applying the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which could not have been applied. The provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC applies only if there are admissions. A reference to the impugned order shows that no admissions of the appellant have been discussed or referred to so as to pronounce judgement under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In fact, there were no admissions, inasmuch as the appellant/defendant had denied the liability in the written statement. Such a suit can therefore only be decided at the stage of final arguments after evidence is led by both the parties.