MANICK CHAND JAJODIA Vs. LALCHAND AGARWAL
LAWS(CAL)-1994-7-18
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 29,1994

MANICK CHAND JAJODIA Appellant
VERSUS
LALCHAND AGARWAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PREMSUK DAS ASARAM V. UDAIRAM GUNGABUX [REFERRED TO]
GHIKKAM KORESWARA RAO VS. CHIKKAM SUBBA RAO [REFERRED TO]
DUDH NATH PANDEY VS. SURESH CHANDRA BHATTASALI [REFERRED TO]
J C GALSTAUN VS. EDSASSOON AND CO LTD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SANKAR CHARAN CHATTOPADHYAY VS. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2009-2-121] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.K.Mookherjee, J. - (1.)This appeal wises out of a suit, filed by the plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs and odd. In that suit, before the service of summons, an application was made by the plaintiff for a judgment on admission. Such application, which was purportedly under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was contested by the appellant and another defendant by filing affidavits-in-opposition. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 21st December, 1993, decreed the suit partly, on admission, for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs.
(2.)From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Trial Judge, in granting the prayer of the plaintiff for a decree on admission, relied upon Annexures 'B' to 'J' and Annexure 'M' to the plaintiff's application. On careful reading of the said judgment of the learned Trial Judge, such a decree on admission appears to have been based on the following reasons and findings : (i) The supplementary agreement (Annexure 'M' to the application) dated 18th June, 1982 contained defendant / appellants' admission about their liability to pay the amount decreed, which was admitted also in the affidavit- in-opposition of the defendant. The said supplementary agreement was not challenged as fabricated document. (ii) Secondly, the defence, which the defendants/appellants pleaded about payment, of that Rs. 40 1akhs, of a sum of Rs. 16,25,117/by his wife, without his knowledge, was unbelievable and could not be considered for the purpose of reduction of the amount of Rs. 40 lakhs by way of adjustment as mentioned in the supplementary agreement (Annexure 'M'). (iii) The documents (Annexures 'B' to 'J' to the application), though alleged to be fabricated and forged by the defendant and not relied upon by the plaintiff, did not require any examination by hand-writings expert, as the signatures therein appeared to be those of the defendant No. 1. (iv) The transactions of shares as referred to in the Memorandum of Settlement, dated 20th June, 1992, constituted completely separate transactions as distinct from the loan transaction, which was the subject matter of the present suit. (v) The plaintiff, on the basis of the Deeds of Assignment, which were Annexures 'L' collectively to the said application, became entitled to the amount due to the assignors. (vi) The application for examination for documents (Annexures 'B' to 'J' to the application) by an expert was a dilatory tactic.
(3.)Before us elaborate submissions had been made by the learned Counsel, representing the contesting parties; on questions of law and fact, as embodied in the petition and affidavits in support and justification of the prayer and objection, respectively, of their clients. A number of decisions had also been cited by both the sides and we propose to refer to the principles laid down therein, which in our view would be relevant and necessary for deciding the question involved in the appeal. It is necessary to mention that submissions of the Counsel for the defendants/appellants included the points made out by him, by reference to the materials before the Court, that there was no necessity or occasion for making a firm and unequivocal admission in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of defences taken rendered the case of admission absurd. The sub - missions of the Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, included references to materials in justification that the facts and circumstances were such that the alleged admission was not only clear, unequivocal and unambiguous but most probable and natural.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.