S.K.Balaji Sha v. M/S.Track Shoes Pvt. Ltd.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN C.R.P. No.2654 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.17520 of 2019 Mr.S.K.Balaji Sha Proprietor of M/s.Rekha Fashion
...Petitioner
Vs M/s.Track Shoes Pvt., Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, No.4/287, Kundrathur Main Road, Kovur, Chennai600 122.
...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned XIX Additional Court,(FAC), City Civil Court, Chennai, in charge the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.128 of 2018 in O.S.No.3774 of 2017 and allow the above petition in I.A.No.128 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.Nagu Sah.N For Respondent : Mr.S.Jeevanantham
O R D E R
This civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.128 of 2018 in O.S.No.3774 of 2017, in and by which, the interlocutory application filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC came to be allowed.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.3774 of 2017 filed against the respondent/defendant herein for recovery of amount of Rs.21,18,867/- with interest and costs. After filing the suit, it appears that the respondent/defendant filed a written statement. According to the petitioner herein, the respondent/defendant is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.7,34,725/- out of the suit claim. Based on this admission in the written statement, the petitioner/plaintiff has
moved an interlocutory application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking to pass judgment and preliminary decree to the extent of Rs.7,34,725/-.
3. Resisting the above interlocutory application, the respondent/ defendant filed a counter affidavit, wherein, they stated that they have not withhold any legitimate amount of Rs.17,95,650/- and the petitioner/ plaintiff had supplied excess goods without any purchase orders from the defendant and the petitioner/plaintiff also did not take back the excess goods. According to the respondent/defendant, they are denying the total suit claim.
4. The Court below, having considered the pleadings and the submissions made by either sides, by an order dated 11.04.2019, dismissed the interlocutory application.
5. On a perusal of the order passed by the Court below, it reveals that the Court below has considered the entire aspects of the matter and was of the view that the written statement as a whole, when read comprehensively, it would go to elicit several facts, wherein, the defendant has vehemently opposed the plaint averments specifically to the effect that they are not liable to pay a sum of Rs.17,95,650/- with interest. The Court below also observed that the petitioner/plaintiff had intentionally supplied excess goods value of Rs.10,60,925/- without any purchase orders from the defendant. Further, the plaintiff has not taken any initiative to take back the excess goods supplied, despite several notices by the petitioner/plaintiff. Therefore, having found subsistence in the contentions raised by the defendant, the Court below has rightly dismissed the interlocutory application, wherein this Court does not find any scope to interfere with the same.
6. There cannot be any decree passed at the initial stage as the issues to be framed and evidence to be let in. The issue has to be decided on merits and has to be dealt comprehensively and no peace meal decree can be passed. Regarding Order 12 Rule 6 CPC., wherein the petitioner has raised a ground that the defendant have apparently admitted their liability in the pleadings, the Court must have passed a judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. Hence, the Court should pass a judgment on admissions.
Order XII Rule 6
(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 fro the determination of any other questions 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. 8 . As per the above said rule, the Court may, at any stage, decide as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. There is no 'shall' prescribed in the code and the same is left to the Court, which is deciding the case and only if the Court may think so, the same can be decided at preliminary stage. As rightly pointed out by the Court below, there are more aspects to be decided and hence, the Court below has dismissed the interlocutory application filed and this Court also finds no good ground to interfere with the same.
9. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made by the Court below as well as this Court does not have any bearing in disposal of the main suit, after full fledged trial. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs. s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sbn To
1. The XIX Additional Judge,(FAC), City Civil Court, Chennai, 2.The XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai +1 CC to Mr.N.Nagu Sah, Advocate sr 28331.
+1 CC to Mr.S.Jeevanantham, Advocate sr 28169. C.R.P. No.2654 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.17520 of 2019 JPL(CO) SP(20/07/2021)