Surendra Singh Bengani vs Ashok Chaudhry
2025 Latest Caselaw 380 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Surendra Singh Bengani vs Ashok Chaudhry on 14 July, 2025

Author: Sugato Majumdar

Bench: Sugato Majumdar

      OD 8+16

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    ORDINARY ORGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                ORIGINAL SIDE
                              IA NO. GA/1/2021
                                In CS/72/2021
                          SURENDRA SINGH BENGANI
                                      Vs
                             ASHOK CHAUDHRY
                                    WITH
                              IA NO. GA/4/2023
                                In CS/72/2021
                         SURENDRA SINGH BENGANI
                                      Vs
                             ASHOK CHAUDHRY



        BEFORE:
        The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR

Date 14th July, 2025.

Appearance:

Mr. Vrindra Singh Bengani,Adv.

...for the plaintiff.

Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Ayan Dutta, Adv.

Mr. Bimalendu Das,Adv.

Ms. Shomrita Das,Adv.

Mr. Shomrik Das,Adv.

... for the defendant

The Court:- GA No. 4 of 2023 is filed by the plaintiff praying for passing

judgment on admission. It is averred that the Defendant admitted the debt of

the Plaintiff in the written statement. Correspondences and writings of the

Defendant also contain admission of the debt. It is further pleaded that there

is no material question between the parties for which this Hon'ble Court may

require to frame issue at this stage. Accordingly, it is prayed that judgment on

admission may be passed and the suit may be decreed accordingly.

Both the parties file affidavit-in-opposition as well as affidavit-in-reply.

Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

In the written statement several pleas are taken by the defendant. One of

the pleas is that the suit is barred by limitation. The second plea is that the

defendant has repaid the entire loan after confirmation of accounts issued for

the financial year 2015-16 and, therefore, any further confirmation of accounts

does not and cannot arise.

In view of the statement, the averment and other averments, there

cannot be a second conclusion except that nowhere there is admission in the

written statement that the defendant is liable to pay the amount. Whether

these facts and averments are true or not is a mixed question of law and fact to

be decided in trial with aid of evidence. But, surely, there is no admission.

Accordingly, GA No. 4 of 2023 is dismissed.

Fix on 13th August, 2025 for hearing of GA No. 1 of 2021.

(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)

S.Chandra