Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Brijlal Kapoor (Defendant No.5), filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 21/04/2018 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, dismissing his application at Exhibit 7 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in S.C. Suit No.7468 of 2013. The respondent No.1, Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff), had instituted a suit for recovery of money and possession of immovable and movable properties. The plaintiff alleged that its employee, Rakesh Kapoor (Defendant No.1 and brother of the petitioner), had defalcated and misappropriated an amount of Rs.47,01,135/- between May 1982 and October 1982, and used the embezzled amount to purchase several immovable and movable properties. The plaintiff further alleged that Defendant No.1 converted his sole proprietorship concerns into partnership firms and transferred the properties to those firms, claiming the partnership deeds were sham, bogus, and fabricated, and the transfers were colourable transactions without consideration. The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.52,04,736/- with interest at 21% on the principal amount, a declaration that the partnership deeds were void and invalid, and possession of the properties. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statements, denying the defalcation and embezzlement, and specifically pleading that the properties were purchased from money derived from the sale of family properties. The petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admission, arguing that the written statement contained admissions regarding the purchase of properties from the embezzled amount. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that there was no clear and unequivocal admission. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the trial court's order. The court noted that the written statement did not contain any admission of the plaintiff's claim; rather, the defendants had denied the allegations and set up a specific defence. The court held that for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. Since there were disputed questions of fact, the suit could not be decreed summarily and required a full trial. The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Judgment on Admission - Clear and unequivocal admission required - The court held that for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. The trial court correctly found that the written statement did not contain such an admission, as the defendants had denied the allegations of defalcation and fraudulent transfer, and had set up a defence of purchase from family property proceeds. (Paras 2-6) B) Civil Procedure - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Disputed questions of fact - Not amenable to summary disposal - The court held that where there are disputed questions of fact, such as whether properties were purchased from embezzled funds or from sale of family properties, the suit cannot be decreed summarily under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The matter requires a full trial. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for judgment on admission, given the alleged admissions in the written statement.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 21/04/2018. The court held that there was no clear and unequivocal admission in the written statement, and the suit involved disputed questions of fact requiring a full trial. The trial court was directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC
- Admission
- Clear and unequivocal admission
- Judgment on admission
- Disputed facts
- Trial necessary
