D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the decree on admission was passed even before the writ of summons was served, inasmuch as, the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 received the writ of summons on August 6, 2001, while the defendant No. 2 received the same on August 16, 2001. Submission on behalf of the Defendants/Applicants :
(2.) Mr. Jyotirmoy Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that a decree on admission could not be passed without the writ of summons being served. He further contended that the said application was also not served on them. Submission on behalf of the Plaintiff/Opposite Party :
(3.) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/decree-holder, on the other hand, contends that Order 12, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, does not postulate that this provision can be resorted to only after the writ of summons is served. The said provision begins with the clauses "at any stage on admission or otherwise a judgment upon admission can be passed." This "at any stage" can include the stage immediately after the filing of the suit, even if writ of summons is not served. He relied on an unreported decision of this Court in G.A. No. 2040 of 1997 (C.S. No. 214 of 1997) in the case of Simplex Engineering and Foundry Works Limited v. Modi Tele Fibres Limited And Others disposed of on 21st December, 1998 by Hon'ble Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J. where such question was raised that such decree on admission could not be passed without the service of the writ of summons; but in the said decision, the decree so passed was affirmed, though, on fact, no writ of summons was served before the decree was passed. Therefore, according to him, the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya cannot be sustained. He further contended that the notices of the application for judgment on admission were served upon the applicants and affidavit of service was filed. He had referred to the Affidavit-in-Opposition wherein the acknowledgement cards had since been annexed.;