1. Through this application under Order XII, rule 6, C.P.C. the plaintiff has prayed that the suit be decreed in view of the admissions made by defendants Nos,1, and 2 in paras. 19 and 20 of their written statement. As regards the claim of plaintiff the details have been stated in para.19 of the plaint when in an amount of Rs,4,63,05,865 has been claimed towards the earnest money, final bill, disputed and undisputed amount, rent for using pipeline and damage, etc. Further 20% and/or 4% above bank rate on the decretal amount has also been claimed as interest/profit and in all a decree has been sought for an amount of Rs,1,03,43,260. In reply to this claim the defendants Nos, 1 and 2, in para. 19, has stated as under :- "19. That in view of what has been submitted above the contents of paras. 19 and 20 are categorically denied as being false and outside the scope of contract and as such the answering defendant put the plaintiff to strict proof thereof. In fact the plaintiff is entitled to the following payments in accordance with the terms of contract agreement under reference:- Value of work Rs,78,52,655 Without Income TaxWith Income
(a) 1st RAR Rs, 14,00,000 Rs,14,87,240
(b) 2nd RAR Rs,23,50,000 Rs,24,84,422 (c)3rd RAR Rs, 10,00,000 Rs,10,76,905
(d) 4th RAR Rs,3.00,000 Rs,53,48 566 Total. Rs,50.500,000Rs,53.,48.566 Balance payment Rs,2504,089 Less deduction
(i) Income iax Final Bill Rs, 1.25.204.45
(ii) 2% Retention Money Rs,1.57,053.10
(iii) WorK done at Risk & cost of the plaintiff Rs,2.32.413.84 Net payable Rs,19,89,417.61 In view of the above it has been prayed in the application that a judgment be passed in plaintiff's favour for an amount of Rs,19,89,417.61 within the meaning Order XII, rule 6, of C.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for plaintiff referred to para. 19 of the written statement wherein some figures have been worked out about running bills and ultimately it is stated that an amount of Rs,19,89,417.61 is net payable, he, therefore, urged that the statements in paras. 19 and 20 be taken as admission and the suit may be decreed for this amount. Mr. Yasir, learned counsel for defendants Nos,1 and 2 submitted that if the plaintiffs are agreeable to this amount as the settlement of their entire claim the matter would then be quite simple. Learned counsel for plaintiff, however, did not agree that the aforesaid amount would satisfy the entire claim.
3. It may be pointed out that the amounts worked out in para. 19 of the plaint have not at all been admitted nor accounted for, in the written statement but the defendants have only stated that at the most the total claim of plaintiff shall fall to Rs,19,89,417.61 which, on the face of it is clear to the effect that the claim 'of the plaintiff has not been admitted. Even in minute particulars the heads of account are different. For instance according to plaintiff, the final bill, dated 20th July, 2000, is Rs,15,534,726 but there is no admission in the written statement about this final bill.
4. Learned counsel for plaintiff, however, relied on Qatar Airways v. Genyis international (Pvt.) Limited (2002 CLC 449) in support of his contention. The relevant portion from the said authority runs as under:- "In view of the above there exists a clear, unambiguous and unqualified admission of the amount to sale proceeds pertaining to the sale of airline ticket of the plaintiff's airline carried on by the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to the same. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the suit is partly decreed in the sub of Rs,29,568, 431 in favour of the plaintiff. The suit will, however, proceed for recovery of the balance outstanding amount of claim not covered under the preliminary decree."
5. A plain reading of the above pronunciation would indicate that this Court on examining the scope of admission within the perspective of Order XII, rule 6, of C.P.0 had entertained the admission which was a clear, unambiguous and unqualified admission of the amount. Obviously, in the instant matter there is no unqualified admission but, on the contrary, the defendants have whittled down the entire claim of the plaintiffs to an amount of Rs,19,89,417.61 to which learned counsel for plaintiff is not agreeable. In the opening of para. 19 of the written statement the defendants Nos,1 and 2 have, in clear terms, expressed that they categorically denied the claim of plaintiff. Indeed, the essential ingredients for the purpose of attracting application of Order XII, rule 6, of C.P.C. are lacking and the material items of the claim are by and large disputed by the defendants. A clear and separable amount has not been mentioned in the written statement, therefore, the points at controversy are yet to be determined by way of allowing the parties to lead evidence on the issues.
6. The application is premature and is, as such, dismissed.