PRABIR KUMAR GHOSH Vs. RATANLAL NAHATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for judgment on admission made by the plaintiffs. The basis for the application is the Written Statement of the defendant which the plaintiffs claim to contain such admissions that the Court should pronounce a judgment on admission thereon.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs entered into a development agreement with the defendant. In term of the development agreement the plaintiff paid various amounts to the defendant. The defendant was required to discharge various obligations under the development agreement. One of such obligations was the requirement of the defendant to make over possession of the immovable property to develop. The time to make over possession expired in January, 2010. The defendant did not do so. The agreement was terminated. The defendant did not return the money received under the development agreement despite demands. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of the money paid to the defendant and in the alternative for damages. In the suit, the defendant filed a written statement. In the written statement, the defendant acknowledged a sum of Rs.78 lakhs to be due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs. On the basis of such admission, the plaintiffs seek a judgment on admission.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff relies upon [2000] 7 SCC 120 (Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd.-Versus-United Bank of India And Others) and submits that, the object of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of 1908 is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief of which, according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiffs are entitled to. According to him, in view of the clear admission in the written statement of the defendant that, the defendant tendered a sum of Rs.78 lakhs to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree on admission to such extent. The balance of the claim may stand trial.