rejecting the applications filed by petitioner seeking passing of a decree against respondent under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C = A reading of Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. indicates that it is permissible for a Court to grant a decree in favour of plaintiff if there are admissions of fact made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties. Thus, this provision enables the Court to pass a decree without insisting on trial if the defendant admits the claim of plaintiff in its entirety or in part. =By separate orders dt.27-07-2015, the Court below dismissed all the applications. The Court below referred to the defense of respondent in the written statements that the works contracts awarded to petitioner by the then Director of the respondent at exorbitantly high tender premia is contrary to the C.P.W.D. norms, that they are unconscionable, and that the petitioner had procured the said contract through the said Director through inducement for wrongful gain to itself, and so they do not bind the respondent. It held that merely because certain amounts were released to petitioner by respondent, there is no admission of liability to pay to petitioner the balance amounts claimed by it in the respective suits. It held that the nature of the contentions raised by respondent indicates that there is no unequivocal admission as to liability to pay the balance amount. It observed that a combined reading of the written statement and reply to interrogatories does not disclose any unconditional admission on the part of respondent of the suit claim, that when the original contracts and entrustment of additional works are in question, and there is an enquiry initiated against the then Director of respondent by a retired High Court Judge, all the issues involved in the suits require to be determined after full trial= HIGH COURT HELD THAT Although learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that there is no specific denial of the allegations made in the plaint by respondent in the written statement and it amounts to admission of liability by respondent under Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C., I am unable to agree with the said submission. I am of the considered opinion that in the present case, taking into account the pleadings of the written statement in its entirety, by necessary implication, the allegations in the plaint in so far as the liability of respondent are concerned, are clearly denied.

CRP 4726 / 2015
CRPSR 25106 / 2015 CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
NCC LTD., HYDERABAD VS NATIONAL INS OF TECHNOLOGY, WARANGAL
PET.ADV. : SARADA RESP.ADV. :
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT: WARANGAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA
RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4652, 4707, 4708 and 4726 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
In all these Revisions, orders passed by the VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal
rejecting the applications filed by petitioner seeking
passing of a decree against respondent under Order XII
Rule 6 C.P.C. are questioned.
2. The petitioner had filed suits O.S.Nos.217 of 2012,
190 of 2012, 216 of 2012 and 218 of 2012 on the file of
the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Warangal for recovery of amounts against the respondent.
3. According to petitioner, it had been engaged in the
business of civil construction and infrastructure
development, that respondent had floated tenders for
construction of certain structures in its campus at N.I.T.
Warangal, that it was the successful bidder and it was
awarded the work of construction under several
agreements and it completed the said work but payments
were not made by respondent.
4. Written statement was filed in all these suits by
respondent stating that the works contracts were awarded
to petitioner by the then Director of the respondent by
inducement for wrongful gain , that they were
unconscionable and do not bind the respondent. It was
contended that exorbitantly high tender premia was
granted by the said Director of respondent contrary to
C.P.W.D. norms, that the contracts do not bind the
respondent, and an enquiry was initiated against the said
Director by a retired Judge of the High Court. It was
contended that the contracts allegedly entered into by
petitioner with respondent were unconscionable, void or
voidable, that it is avoiding the same and no decree can
be passed on the basis of a void contract. It was alleged
that the then Director had exceeded the authority in
allotting additional works to petitioner, that there is no
written contract governing the terms for the additional
works said to have been entrusted by him and not only
the original contract but also entrustment of additional
work does not bind the respondent. In addition to the
above contentions, it was also contended that the rate of
interest claimed by petitioner was fanciful, exorbitant and
oppressive and same the same is also disputed.
5. The petitioner filed applications under Order XII Rule
6 C.P.C. in all these suits contending that certain
interrogatories have been served on the respondent’s
officials, and the pleadings in the written statement as well
as answers given by petitioner to the interrogatories, in no
uncertain terms prove the said claim. It was also alleged
that the respondent had not taken a specific pleading
either denying or disputing the said claim or pointed out
any defaults in executing the works by petitioner in
concluding the contract. It was pointed out that although
respondent had raised a plea of the contracts being void,
the respondent is not entitled to do so and is estopped
from raising such a plea. It was stated that in the
interrogatories the respondent had admitted that certain
payments had been made to petitioner and this also
amounts to an unequivocal admission with regard to its
liability to pay the suit amounts. It was further contended
that the only issue that remains in the suits is regarding
interest with regard to disputed amounts and the same
can be adjudicated in the trial.
6. Counter affidavits were filed by respondent to these
applications denying all the contentions raised therein and
it is pointed out that in the written statement there is no
unequivocal admission of liability to pay any amount to
petitioner. It was contended that merely because in the
written statements it was stated that part payment of bills
submitted by petitioner was made, it does not amount to
any unequivocal admission; and that in the light of the
defense taken in the written statement that the then
Director of respondent had exceeded his power in
awarding contracts to the petitioner at grossly inflated
tender premium, the said contracts do not bind
respondent, no relief can be granted to petitioner.
7. By separate orders dt.27-07-2015, the Court below
dismissed all the applications. The Court below referred
to the defense of respondent in the written statements that
the works contracts awarded to petitioner by the then
Director of the respondent at exorbitantly high tender
premia is contrary to the C.P.W.D. norms, that they are
unconscionable, and that the petitioner had procured the
said contract through the said Director through
inducement for wrongful gain to itself, and so they do not
bind the respondent. It held that merely because certain
amounts were released to petitioner by respondent, there
is no admission of liability to pay to petitioner the balance
amounts claimed by it in the respective suits. It held that
the nature of the contentions raised by respondent
indicates that there is no unequivocal admission as to
liability to pay the balance amount. It observed that a
combined reading of the written statement and reply to
interrogatories does not disclose any unconditional
admission on the part of respondent of the suit claim, that
when the original contracts and entrustment of additional
works are in question, and there is an enquiry initiated
against the then Director of respondent by a retired High
Court Judge, all the issues involved in the suits require to
be determined after full trial.
8. Challenging the same these Revisions are filed.
9. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for
petitioner, contended that respondent had entrusted the
works to petitioner under agreements, that it had also got
done certain works, and after getting the works executed
by petitioner, respondent cannot take the plea that the
contracts entered into by petitioner with respondent by the
then Director are unconscionable and he had exceeded
his powers in entering into such contracts. He also
contended that there is no specific denial in the written
statement of the liability to the petitioner and that the
answers given in the interrogatories supplied by petitioner
to respondent wherein the respondent had admitted to
have paid certain bills to petitioner, amounts to an
unequivocal and unconditional admission of liability
entitling the petitioner to a decree under Order XII Rule 6
C.P.C. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court of India in Balraj Taneja and another Vs. Sunil
Madan and another
[1]
, Karam Kapahi and others Vs.
M/s.Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and another
[2]
,
Regula Krishna Vs. Kondapalli Sampath Kumar and
others
[3]
a n d Pothireddy Kannam Reddy Vs. The
District Collector
[4]
.
10. Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. states:
“Order XII – Admissions:
6. Judgment on admissions. (1) Where admissions of
fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise,
whether orally or in writing the Court may at any stage of
the suit, either on the application of any party or of its
own motion and without waiting for the determination of
any other question between the parties, make such order
or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to
such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under subrule(1)
a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with
the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on
which the judgment was pronounced.”
11. Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C. states:
“Order VIII: Written Statement, Set-off And
Counter-Claim
5. Specific denial: (1) Every allegation of fact in the
plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary
implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of
the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as
against a person under disability:
Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any
fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
admission.
(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall
be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the
basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as
against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in
its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.
(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to subrule
(1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due
regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or
has, engaged a pleader
(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this Rule,
a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such
judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which
the judgment was pronounced.”
12. A reading of Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. indicates that it
is permissible for a Court to grant a decree in favour of
plaintiff if there are admissions of fact made either in the
pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, without
waiting for the determination of any other question
between the parties. Thus, this provision enables the
Court to pass a decree without insisting on trial if the
defendant admits the claim of plaintiff in its entirety or in
part.
13. I n Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd
[5]
, the
Supreme Court held that for a decree to be granted under
this provision, an admission should be categorical and
should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party
making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. It held
that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is only an enabling provision
and it is neither mandatory nor peremptory, but is only
discretionary. It observed that the Court, on examination
of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial
discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission
is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any
remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal. It
observed that unless the admission is clear, unambiguous
and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not
be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to
contest the claim. It clarified that the discretion should be
used only when there is a clear “admission” which can be
acted upon.
14. In Balraj Taneja (1 supra), the Supreme Court held
that denial by the defendant in his written statement must
be specific with reference to each allegation of fact made
in the plaint and a general denial or an evasive denial is
not treated as sufficient denial and it is required to be
definite, positive and unambiguous.
15. In Karam Kapahi (2 supra), the Supreme Court
reiterated that the provision under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C.
is enabling, discretionary and permissible and is neither
mandatory nor peremptory and in a given situation it can
be applied in rendering the judgment. In that case also it
was also observed that admissions can be inferred from
facts and admissions of the case and admissions in
answer to the interrogatories are also covered under this
Rule.
16. In Regula Krishna (3 supra), a learned Single Judge
of this Court held that order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C. can be
invoked where allegations in the plaint are not specifically
denied in the written statement in which event they should
be deemed to have admitted.
17. In Pothireddy Kannam Reddy (4 supra), a Division
Bench of this Court also placed reliance on Order VIII
Rule 5 C.C.P.C. and held that the said principle applies to
Writ jurisdiction and can be applied where a Writ petitioner
did not file a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by a
respondent therein disputing the stand taken by
respondent in the counter affidavit.
18. In the written statements filed by respondent
nowhere is there a clear, unambiguous and unconditional
admission of liability by respondent. Not only had the
respondent stated that all material claims, contentions,
averments and allegations in the plaints are false and
baseless, it had also stated that save those expressly
admitted in the written statements, the respondent does
not admit any of them and puts the plaintiff to strict and
legal proof. That apart, it was specifically contended that
the work contracts awarded to petitioner by the then
Director are unconscionable and do not bind the
respondent, and that the petitioner had procured the same
through the said Director by inducement for wrongful gain
to itself. It was contended that there was an enquiry by a
retired High Court Judge against the Director of
respondent for having granted the subject contracts at
exorbitant high tender premia contrary to the C.P.W.D.
norms to petitioner and that the respondent is avoiding the
said contract. It was specifically contended that the then
Director of respondent had exceeded his authority in
entrusting additional works to petitioner without any written
contract and for shockingly excessive tender premia and
this entrustment is also not binding on respondent. In
addition, there is also denial of liability to pay any amount
at the rate of interest claimed in the plaint. In my
considered opinion, this amounts to implied denial of
every allegation in the plaint. Even the statement of the
respondent in response to the interrogatories that some
bills submitted by petitioner were paid, does not amount to
any admission of liability to pay the balance amounts
claimed in the suits.
19. Although learned counsel for petitioner sought to
contend that there is no specific denial of the allegations
made in the plaint by respondent in the written statement
and it amounts to admission of liability by respondent
under Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C.,
I am unable to agree with the said submission. I am of the
considered opinion that in the present case, taking into
account the pleadings of the written statement in its
entirety, by necessary implication, the allegations in the
plaint in so far as the liability of respondent are concerned,
are clearly denied.
20. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any
error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in
the orders passed by the Court below in the orders
impugned in these Revision Petitions.
21. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are
dismissed. No costs. However, the Court below is
directed to expedite hearing of the suits.
22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any,
in these Revisions shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 22-12-2015
Vsv/*
[1]
(1999) 8 SCC 396
[2]
AIR 2010 SC 2077
[3]
2007(2) ALD 359
[4]
2014(4) ALT 653
[5]
2011(5) SC 273

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.