Sengupta, J. - (1.) Application for amendment, though taken out belatedly even after taking out the application for judgment upon admission, and this application for judgment upon admission are taken up for hearing together for convenience sake. Since the application for judgment upon admission has been taken out at earlier point of time it is heard first. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support, of his application has drawn my attention to letter dated 8th April, 1996 which was addressed by one Satish Kumar Modi being defendant No. 3 to the Managing Director of the plaintiff wherefrom even upon plain reading it will appear that a sum of Rs. 80 lacs is admitted to have been due on 8th April, 1996.
(2.) Mr. Chatterjee contends that no other evidence or material is required to pronounce judgment on the aforesaid sum together with interest as has been claimed in this application. He has also drawn my attention to the provisions of the Order 12 Rule 6 and contended that it was not necessary that the admission has to be made in a pleading, the word "otherwise" includes any document which has been found either during pre-suit period or after filing of the suit. His further contention is that there cannot be any embargo in passing judgment pursuant to the admission of aforesaid sum by the said letter.
(3.) Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate, appearing for the defendant No. 1 contends that the letter written before filing of the suit should not be treated to be an admission for pronouncing judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. H. contends that the word "otherwise" should be read as esjusdem generis to the meaning of the word "pleading", meaning thereby the admission has to be made after filing of the suit either in the pleading or in the letters exchanged between the parties as contemplated in the procedure laid down under Rules I to 2 of the Order 12. With anything short of the aforesaid materials this application should not be maintained. He has cited an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14th September, 1990 passed in Appeal 92 of 1987 (Manali Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State Bank of India ). He has drawn my attention to the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment and contended that the Appeal Court did not approve of the decree that was passed on the basis of the confirmation and acknowledgement made by the defendants before filing of the suit. The decision of the appeal Court has got a very supportive value in this matter. Moreover, he contends that when an application for amendment is pending whereby the plea of jurisdiction has been taken and without deciding the question of jurisdiction this Court should not pronounce judgment upon admission.;