UNION OF INDIA Vs. FEROZE & CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment and decree of a Single Judge decreeing a part of the plaintiffs claim upon admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts, in so far as they are material, are as follows:

(2.) THE plaintiff, Feroze and Co; instituted a suit for the recovery of five lacs of rupees from the defendant which included the security deposits amounting to Rs.l,70,000/ - lying with the defendant on account of various contracts entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant, the plaintiff made an application to the Court under Order 12, Rule 6, C. P. C. praying that a decree be passed in its favour for a sum of Rs.l,70,000/ - admitted by the defendant in its written statement to be due to the plaintiff firm and payable by it. The defendant resisted this application on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the security deposits cannot be decreed unless the plaintiff furnished a no demand certificate as required by clause 17(iv) of the contract entered into between the parties.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Judge Had erred in holding that there was an unconditional admission of liability on the part of the defendant in respect bf security deposits of Rs.1,70,000/ - lying with it It is argued that in paragraph 9 of the written statement the defendant had definitely stated that it was prepared to return the balance of security deposits to the plaintiff only on its furnishing a no demand certificate as contemplated by the terms of the agreement, that there was no unconditional or unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant regarding its liability to pay the security deposits to the plaintiff and that a decree could not have been passed for this amount under Order 12, Rule 6, C. P. C. Paragraph 9 of the written statement filed by the defendant is in the following terms: