STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MIDLAND INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of I. A. No. 177 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 rule 6 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. with a request that in so far as the defendant has made an admission in a letter dated 25th August, 1985 that a sum of Rs. 5,98,0001- was due to the plaintiff from the defendant a decree be passed for this amount in favour of the plaintiff without waiting for the final out-come of the suit. The application is opposed obehalf of the defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the application and its reply as also the plaint and the written statement and documents placed on record and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to .the following findings :

(2.) The contention of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 firm has been maintaining its accounts and a letter dated 25th August, 1985 now Ex. P. 4 was written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff requesting the plaintiff to transfer the then existing outstanding loan against the defendant along with interest to the defendants 'Working Capital Term Loan' Account. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that along therewith the defendant had submitted a balance sheet as on 31st March, 1985 and in the said balance sheet the defendant had admitted that a sum of Rs. 5,98,0001- was due as on that date to the plaintiff from the defendant and as such it is submitted that in view of the said admission a decree for this amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that there are as many as five defendants and all of them are contesting the suit on various grounds both legal and factual and the defendants have raised as many as five preliminary ob- jections as well in their written statement. It is also urged that the plaintiff was placing wrong construction on Ex. P. 4 which otherwise is admitted to have been written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. It has further been submitted by the defendants that the said letter has not been signed, or written by all the defendants and the balance sheet referred to therein is wrong, vague, ambiguous and denied and in these circumstances it has been submitted that the application should be dismissed.