LAWS(UTN)-2020-2-40

MANKIEWICZ SINGAPORE LLP Vs. ACT FIBREGLASS LTD.

Decided On February 24, 2020
Mankiewicz Singapore Llp Appellant
V/S
Act Fibreglass Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision, preferred under Section 115 of C.P.C., is directed against the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun in O.S. No.491 of 2013, whereby said court has dismissed the application paper no.41C1 filed by the revisionist/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for decreeing the suit on the basis of admission of the respondent/defendant.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that the revisionist/plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No.491 of 2013 against the respondent/defendant for recovery of Rs. 46,81,665.07 along with interest @ 24% per annum. Respondent/defendant contested the suit and filed its written statement. In the written statement, the respondent/defendant denied the plaint averments and raised a plea that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not legally maintainable. In para-9 of the written statement, the defendant pleaded that the defendant had placed orders for supply of paint and allied chemicals to the defendant but the plaintiff has deliberately not revealed the terms and conditions of supply and that the goods were not received by the defendant to its satisfaction. The defendant in his written statement has not admitted the claim of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, revisionist/plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC stating therein that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff therefore the suit filed for recovery Rs. 46,81,665.07 be decreed against the defendant in view of the admission made in the written statement. Said application was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing objections and it was contended that the application is not maintainable. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the material brought on record, by the impugned order dated 03.07.2019, has dismissed the application.

(3.) Before dwelling into the controversy, it would be apt to refer Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C., which is quoted herein below:-