Canara Bank vs M.M. Polypacking (P) Ltd.
1991 Latest Caselaw 738 Del

JUDGMENT

(1) By this application plaintiff claims decree against defendants on the admissions said to be contained in the balance sheets of defendant No. 1 for the year ending 31st March 1983 and for the year ending 30th August 1984. Under the provisions of Order 12 Rule'6 Civil Procedure Code the court in its discretion which, of course, has to be exercised judicially, can pass decree on clear and unambiguous admissions made by the defendant in the pleadings or otherwise at any stage of the suit. In this case following Ii issues have been framed:-

1. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised and competent person on behalf of the plaintiff ? OPP

2.Whether the Cash Credit, Documentary, Bills and Deferred Payment Guarantee for Purchase of Machinery A/c were separate and independent of each other ? If so, what is its effect ? OPD

3.Whether the suit is bad for disjoined of causes of action ? If so, what is its effect ? OPD

4.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPP

5.Whether the payment of Rs.80,000.00 on 8th of June 1982 was specifically made towards the Idbi Account ? OPD

6.Whether the plaintiff committed breach of the Bill Purchase Account ? If so, what is its effect ? OPD

7.If issue No.6 is proved, did defendant suffer any loss ? If so, to what amount of damages are the defendants entitled to recover from the plaintiff ? OPD

8.Whether the counter claim of the defendants is within limitation ? OPD

9.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive any amount from the defendants. If so, how much, and, from which of the defendants ? OPP

10.Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest ? If so, on what amount, for which period, and at what rate ? OPP

11.Relief."

(2) The defendants in their written statement have, inter- alia, raised serious plea of limitation. The plaintiff has, inter-alia, pleaded in the plaint that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 8th June, 1982 when the advance payments were received. Defendants have pleaded that the said payment was made in another account. Besides the defendants have also filed the counter claim thereby claiming damages for more than Rs. 8 Lakhs against the plaintiff whereas the present suit is for recovery of Rs.5,20,000.00 . I have gone through the application, balance sheets and the record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner to pass a decree as claimed in this application. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(3) List this suit for trial on 2nd November 1991. Learned counsel for the part is state that the witnesses will be produced on their own responsibility. The case will proceed from day to day