G.B.Singh - (1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment dated 4-3-1989 of Civil Judge, Unnao decreeing the suit under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC.
(2.) THE Central Bank of India opposite party filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 33009777.25 paise on the allegation that the plaintiff carries on banking business and one of its Branches is at Moti Nagar, Unnao. M/s. Sterling Hides and Skin Industries Private Ltd. defendant No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on business of purchase, sale, processing, finishing tanning etc. of all kinds of hides and skins of all types of animals, leather and leather goods etc. THE defendant No. 9 is its Managing Director and the defendants Nos. 10 and 11 are its Directors. THE defendants Nos. 2 to 8 are ancillary units of the parent Company defendant No. 1. THE defendant No. 12 is Managing Director of some of the ancillary units. Defendants Nos. 9 to 12 stood as guarantors for the repayment of the dues of the plaintiff on defendant No 1. In the year 1978 the parent Company defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff for the grant of working capital in the shape of cash credit for carrying on business of leather and leather goods. THE plaintiff thereupon sanctioned a cash credit (open loan) limit of Rupees ten lacs. In this connection the defendant No. 1 and its Directors executed on 2-1- 1979 promissory note, agreement of hypothecation against the goods and some letters. Defendants Nos. 9 to 12 executed letters of guarantee guaranteeing the repayment of the said Cash Credit facility. On 16-2-1979 the defendant No. 1 through its Director executed demand promissory note and other documents for further Cash Credit of Rupees Ten Lacs. THEreafter the defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff for grant of further facility as well as enhancement of existing Cash Credit facilities and the plaintiff granted the same. On 16-10- 1979 the plaintiff Bank sanctioned packing credit limit Rupees Twenty Lacs, export bills limit Rupees Fifteen Lacs; Endorsed demand bills limit of Rupees Three Lacs, Cash Credit (Pledge) limit Rupees Five Lacs, Cash Credit (Hypothecation) limit Rupees Five Lacs. On 24-9-1982 and 16-4-1983 defendant No. 1 and its Director further executed D.P. Note and other documents for credit facilities of Rupees Thirty Lacs and Rupees Forty Five Lacs respectively. In the month of November 1984 the plaintiff Bank sanctioned Cash Credit open hypothecation limit of Rupees 40 Lacs and the defendant No. 1 executed demand promissory note and some other documents. Similarly, on 30-3-1987 when outstanding in Cash Credit account of the defendant No 1 rose to Rs. 92,22,163.75 paise the defendant No. 1 executed some other documents. Apart from this some other transactions also took place. A sum of Rs. 1,55,60,43675 paise became outstanding debit balance in the Cash Credit account No. 1 of the defendant No 1 ; Rs. 12,12.38.1.80 paise became outstanding debit balance in the Cash Credit account No 2 of defendant No. 1 ; Rs. 1,21,79,879.70 paise became outstanding debit balance for packing credit account of the defendant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 4057079.00 paise became outstanding debit balance in respect of performance guarantee Thus, the total sum of Rs. 33009777.25 paise became due to the plaintiff. Notice was served upon the defendants but the said amount has not been paid. THE plaintiff, therefore, claimed recovery of the said amount with pendentelite and future interest. The suit was contested by the defendants. They filed written statement and admitted the execution of the aforesaid documents and guarantees. The correctness of the accounts of the plaintiff was also not challenged The defendants, however, pleaded that the suit was liable to be stayed under section 10, CPC because they have already filed suit for recovery of certain sura by way of compensation in the Bombay High Court for breach of the contract committed by the plaintiff Bank. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the contract became void as Bank Company did not perform some conditions which were part of the contract and prevented the defendants from performing their contract executed in favour of the Iranian Government. Before framing issues an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC, for pronouncing the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the admissions of the plaintiff's claim made by the defendants in their written statement. It was also mentioned in that application that the claim of the petitioner has been admitted by Atiq Ahmad defendant No. 11 In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of defendants against plaintiff's application under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Order 40, Rule 1 and section 151, CPC. On the basis of this application arguments were heard and learned Civil Judge decided the suit on the basis of the admissions under Order 12, Rule 6. CPC. Feeling dissatisfied with it the present revision has been filed by the defendants.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff opposite party raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the revision He argued that under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC when the judgment is pronounced on the basis of admissions, decree follows and no revision lies against the said judgment and decree. LEARNED counsel for the defendants revisionists, on the other hand, argued that Order 12, Rule 6, CPC contemplates two stages One of them is when the court decides to proceed under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC to deliver judgment on admissions and the other is when the judgment is actually delivered. He further argued that the revision can lie when the court decides to proceed under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC. After having carefully considered the arguments advanced, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party must prevail. Order 12, Rule 6, CPC reads as follows : "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 sub-rule (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." The words 'at any stage' used in the aforesaid Rule point out that the plaintiff can move for judgment upon admission in the defence at any stage in the suit. The court can, therefore, proceed under this Rule at any stage of the suit and it was not necessary for it to frame any issue first and then to proceed under this Rule. The rule indicates that the admissions should be of fact and they should be either in the pleadings or otherwise. Thus, the learned Civil judge could take into account the admissions made in the written statement as well as in the counter affidavit pointed out by the plaintiff in his application under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 6 shows that it does not contemplate any interlocutory order before passing the judgment on admission. It has been observed in Gorivelli Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma, AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh 62 that Order 12, Rule 6, CPC does not contemplate the passing of interim orders but empowers the court to pass judgment and decree in respect of admitted claim pending disposal of adjudication of the disputed claims in a suit In view of this the contention of the learned counsel for revisionists that the Civil Judge should have first passed an interim order that he was proceeding under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC does not appear correct If such an order is not contemplated by Order 12. Rule 6, CPC it cannot be presumed that such an order had been passed by implication and as such the revision can be filed.;