Smt. Kulwant Kaur Vs Smt. Shabana Bai (wrongly mentioned as ‘Smt. Sawana Bai’) and others

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], W.P. (227) No.120 of 2015 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 24, 2015

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P. (227) No.120 of 2015
PETITIONER Smt. Kulwant Kaur
Versus
RESPONDENTS Smt. Shabana Bai (wrongly
mentioned as ‘Smt. Sawana Bai’)
and others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
ORAL ORDER
(24/02/2015)
This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by defendant
No. 6. By the impugned order the trial Court has dismissed the suit for want
of prosecution.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the present
petitioner, defendant No.6, had admitted the claim the trial Court should have
decreed the suit to that extent as provided under Order 9 Rule 8 Code of
Civil Procedure.
3. On perusal of the plaint it is revealed that the plaintiff had filed a suit
claiming relief against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2. No relief was claimed
against the present petitioner/defendant No.6. The scope and purport of
Order 9 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure is to enable the trial Court to pass
a decree with respect to such part of the suit, to the extent of which, the
defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff. For a decree to be passed
on such admission, the suit must be brought against such defendant whose
admission is a relevant consideration for passing a decree. Any admission by
any other party to the suit, against whom no relief is claimed, would not
entitled the trial Court to pass a decree allowing the suit even in the absence
of plaintiff. If the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
accepted, in a given case, the plaintiff may implead a colluding defendant
who will admit the claim of the plaintiff and thereafter on a given date of
hearing the plaintiff would remain absent and on the basis of admission by
colluding defendant the suit will be allowed to that extent.
4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is frivolous
and the present writ petition is misconceived and vexatious.
5. The petition is dismissed.
J U D G E