C.K. SURENDRAN Vs. KUNHIMOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are against the two orders passed by the trial court in a subsequent suit in O.S.No.61/2021 by the plaintiff. The subject of C.R.P.No.68/2023 is the order passed rejecting an application to pass a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C by the trial court. C.R.P.No.134/2023 is against the order dismissing an application for attachment before judgment in that suit.

(2.) The application submitted by the plaintiff in I.A.No.1/2023 in O.S.No.61/2021 is for getting a decree under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. based on the admission in the written statement submitted by the defendant. The suit is admittedly for recovery of licence fee based on agreement for licence. The arrears of licence fee comes to Rs.3,76,98,040.00 (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand and Forty only). The pleading in paragraph 14 of the written statement admits payment of licence fee upto the month of April, 2020 as per cheque No.126495 dtd. 10/8/2020. Further, it is stated that the defendant did not avail the benefit of COVID 19 pandemic as alleged by the plaintiff. He did not have any pleading that the subsequent monthly licence fee was paid or tendered or adjusted otherwise. It is contended that the admission, if any incorporated in paragraph 14 of the written statement is not an unqualified admission, without which no power under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. can be exhausted to pass a decree on admission and took reliance from Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar [(2022) 10 SCC 496].

(3.) The legislative intent by the incorporation of Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. is to avoid unnecessary trial of any suit, wastage of time and speedy disposal of litigation, when there is an admission regarding the liability to the extent of making it possible to pass a decree on such admission. The admission by way of pleading should be clear, unambiguous and must be of the nature and the extent to pass a decree wholly and completely based on such pleading without leaving any scope for any oral or documentary evidence or any clarification, for that purpose, the entire pleading in the written statement should be taken in whole and not in isolation. At the same time, it cannot be insisted invariably in all cases that there should be an unqualified admission or a declaration to that effect by way of pleading or otherwise to pass a decree on admission. The test that can be applied is to find out whether it is permissible or possible to determine conclusively the rights of parties and to adjudicate it without seeking any clarification or evidence. A mere contention that licence fee was paid upto a particular date though admits non-payment of licence fee thereafter would not by itself empower the court to pass a decree on such admission, when the maintainability of the suit was brought under challenge either on account of limitation or any other debarring provision. The jurisdiction that can be exercised in order to pass a decree on admission under Rule 6 of Order XII C.P.C. is imperative and peremptory, but does not call for an unqualified admission invariably in all cases. The admission can be either by way of pleading or by way of documentary evidence or by oral evidence. What is dealt under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. covers both the admission by pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing and it can be exercised at any stage of the suit either on the application of any of the party or on its own motion without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties. The Apex Court had laid down in Karan Singh and Another v. State of M.P. and Others (AIR 1986 SC 1506) that the admission in the written statement should be taken as a whole and not in part. Further, the jurisdiction that can be exercised under Rule 6 of Order XII C.P.C. has no overriding effect over the other provisions of law including the question of res judicata, bar of limitation, bar of any other provision such as Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C., Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. etc., but would stand subject to all such provisions inclusive of res judicata as embodied under Sec. 11 C.P.C. and estoppel under various other provisions including the bar of limitation. When such bar or limitation was taken up in the written statement, it is wholly impermissible to pass a decree on admission without adjudicating the said questions of maintainability or bar of limitation.