Madras High Court
Mr.S.K.Balaji Sha vs M/S.Track Shoes Pvt. on 16 June, 2021
C.R.P.No.2654 of 2019
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1
C.R.P.No.2654 of 2019
ORDER
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2654 of 2019
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2654 of 2019
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2654 of 2019
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2654 of 2019
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.
16.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
sbn
To
1. The XIX Additional Court,(FAC),
City Civil Court, Chennai,
2. The XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.2654 of 2019
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
sbn
C.R.P. No.2654 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.17520 of 2019
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
