IN THE HIGH oou RT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE 5 %
DATED THIS THE 23*" mew cw MAY, 2§°8 1 A V} %%
BEFORE
"me HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE rm. NAc§Aa4§>HA§2 = %
W.P.10034 :2gg8gafg%--cPc$)" A
BETWEEN: t
Sri C.Bharath Kumar ; "
S4/o late Sri Charrdmuil S.K._.. V
Major. aged aboutfifivyearss ' . _ '
Pia No.13,-9' "
Shankarpuram; 'V " _»
Bangalore-56!) ' V' ~
V .... ' "<;;.. '«..,_wLPETITIONER
(By Sri Pam %'Jaa§1,A;¢m [ * %
AND: 5 - ..
" s3r.;:;:{£nax:sshna '
S/or Eats Sri.H-.D6d¢a1hamme Gowda
V _ "52, "':-yam " '
_ Y
V pk Q aanga1or.;¢56o'o4o.
No.3 ?96fB, 29.'? 9"' Grass,
6"' Main, RFC -Layout, Vijaynagar
..RESF'ONDENT
'* (BiyV[3ri.Nandish Gowcia for
"Sr? R.B.Sadashivapa, Adv. )
This wrii petifion filed under Artictes 226 & 227 of the
VA A V Constitution of India praying to quash the order cmo.7.2ooa
passed on I.A.No.5, in OS No.16736l2006 pending in the
court of City Civii Judge, Bangalore (CCH-20).
W
This petition coming on for preiiminaty hearéfié
day, the court made the foifuwing: _. ~ ~-- . ._
ORDER
In fiwis petition, the petitionephas ‘préiyed for?’ in ‘
{he nature of certiorari to quash dated .V1O;?.”.V2od«’§ iri”
0.S.No.16?36f2006 by’%%Ltrje%3%%%¢%iiy.%_civie'”Judge,
Bangaiore City dismissing I.A.:~4g:.s%ai:é7eci um}praer 12 Rule
6 opc. ‘ ” ‘
2.__ wrespondent is the
defendant _t:§t¢:e Tfiae in this order for
conveniehcéthe §Ee. :i6i’%éned to their status before
the “ma! Qoufé.
filed 0.S.No.16738J2006 against the
H {€¢<;\rery of a sum of Rs.85.87,000l~ together
–V witr’§ inzte’*#:e;Vst’éi;rzd costs. The defendant entered apmarance
‘A mfose Trial Court and flied written statement interaiia
génying the claim of piaenafl. Thereafter me plainfiff med an
“”§pp{ica§m LA.r4o.5 under Order :2 me e cpc for a
iudgmenz on admission to an extent of Rs.70,75.000l~. The
defendant flied their obiections denying the averments made
,.__,x_,
K
in the affidavit in support of LA.No.5. The Trial Court
hearing both the parfies and on appreciation of the V:-« : E
and docurnems on record, passed the impugnefiii
rejecting i.A.No.5 on me ground that i{1ere;.:i4$A -Taciémiséicn
by the defendants. Hence, this.yv1’Et
petifion.
3. Heard argumenéiéfin peruééfif the
entire writ papers. V
4; ‘<"J"'rc;'eT.§.'A:'?;;'2 -6 under:
Judgz! Ient:d£é:'32im§ifs%§t%§ '
(1) fact have been made eftfier
' 'V in olhervvise, whefher orally or in
wtiiing. may at any stagegof the suit,
V 1 .. the application of any party or of its own
waiting forthedetermnafion of
.. 'anfbflzer question between the parties, make
" _ Ewch Order orgive suahjudgmem' as it may think
'at, having wanna such
(2) Whenever ajuvxtnent is pronounced under sub-
;z:Ie{1) a decree shall he dnawn up in eooomlance
witirthejudgmentandthedmreeshalibearthe
date on which thajuwment was pronounced.
____/'\….r
''*e.,./
pleading or come within the scope of the Ruie
stateinents are not made in the course of the
otherwise. when a statement is ma«aeeAtb:)_a _
stateinent is brought be-ioie {be c:ouiii eqn:ie.een oi ' T T
liability by an appioaiion iiied under oeeexii, rg»ae% 6».endf "–~
_ the other side has sufiicient fa
admission and if such explanatioiiie by} the
Court, we do not think infei ceait in to
pass a decree. We have ' _.; ' _ of the ciaim
and the mamer in whi'cfi~€.':e. with the
same. When r§»1e'fi1fe}" made
in the pmcem "iiége eee qfbireefnis meeting and the
ieiier gig read together,
extent ie which the is in dispute. And the
court had é :,iiiii;{toV same and grant a miee. We
think; t?1i.s.appm&.*;fiVi$'unexcep6onabfie.
~."4."~&ef§i*e_ the trial Judge, there was me pieading
ie'ssI"_§ai_i as in the circumstaiices in which
was made ea as in take it out of the
caiegery eiedmieezms which cieeied liability. On me other
., fxaiiag what is stated in fire course of me pieadiizgs, in
'enswer ie the anolicetibn filed under' cine: XI! Rziie 5, sec,
stand is clearly in the confiazy. Statements had been
Wmede in the course of the Minmes ofthe Board oioiieciore
he-Idori 30"' May, 1990 In which wehave ereadyedveneciio
in demil. in me pleadings raised before the Court, mete is a
6
clear statement made by {he raspondent as
undisputed part of she claim made by them. In regard~«£ri.’:?2i.§_ ,f ” ,
aspect of communicating the resolution defied £113};-“‘
1990 inu2e1e:terdatad4″”June, 199Q,wh§tis
amdavst in oppézsiaon in application ta:ader,OElef._)Gi,_.’Rh}*e.. 3 ‘ T
CPO is save, whaf are madam’ on énd wha”t» ‘–~
would appaar hum we 30″‘ kgv:ay,T’V.A19g;¢.A,.5;;-‘V
allegations in the contrary am This
averment would clearly. not
deny a word of what ‘arid what is
denied is the denial is
evasive and .i.udg’;e”i;§ jzisiified in holding
that there is*anc£:r:e cements of the
docuzfiérrts amc extent of the admission but
the mcnme in me-;:ab:§iy is
refemhg to the expnession
_ 1;)” ‘Rule 6 of Omar XII, CFC, we can dtaw an
ihfererce. V’ case on me basis of the p%’ngs
In the”i¢a%se m the shape of the appncaaons under that
Ruié meanssuenng affidavit wffich ciearfy renew” tes the
.. Qjdmlséiagfi; If that is so, Interpretation of ihe expmssron
‘ ..f_» unnecessary.
3. The obgect of Order 12 Ruie 6 CPO is to enabie
V’ the piazntiff to a speedy gudgment to Ehe extent of the relief
admitted by the defendant. it the admission is in respect of
l
the entire relief ctaimed in the plaint then the court rnsty
a judgment to the entire claim. If the
respect of a portion of the relief tt1en:’»11’1e:;t:tt:-tztt if
parfiai judgment. This admission may beint pt=eedijng_Vor
otherwise. The word ‘otiwerwiseti Jfand
include me admission ebewtjorei’ pleetztings.
Any such admission must claimed
in the ptaint. Sg1eti’jA;vaé€imiesto:i;.oiear, specific
and the or quatified
or pass judgment on
admission. : in pteadings and mat the
same fatts nndet”fi:eV ‘wont ‘oinerwise’ under flute 8, then an
– _opp.»§ttunity shat! oé’prov«ided to the defendant to explain the
said end if such explanation is aooeptabte m the
cfc::.r.rt”i%t1en’t£.4;e__re?’oVa’a:nnot be a judgment on admission under
Order? 6 C90. Keeping fiwese prtnoiples in mtnd it is
‘V ” to examine the fact situation in the present case.
7. tn support of me apptieation i.A.No.5. tiw plaintiff
med an affidavit. In this effidavit the plairttifi reiied on an
encioreement made by the defendant on 2.6.2006 admitting
‘1/
dispose the same within a time frame of six months frorr_:_’–“t§r:zAMe” 4_
éate of receipt of copy of this order.
DKBI