The mere fact that the plaintiff alleges that the defendant executed a hypothecation bond and the defendant while admitting the signature upon that document pleads that the document was obtained by fraud and signatures were obtained on blank forms without communicating to him the import of that document, will not be sufficient to warrant an order in terms of Rule 10 of Order 39 because that, in my opinion, will not tantamount to say that the defendant admits the hypothecation i.e., that he holds the property in trust for the plaintiff/creditor. Such an admission would not be sufficient to allow a Court to pass a decree under Order 12, Rule 6 C. P. C. That admission would also be insufficient to warrant a direction under Rule 10 of Order 39 C. P. C. It was rightly stated in Devsi Narain Patel v. Hassanand, AIR 1927 Sind 25, that the admission in order to entitle a party to a judgment under Order 12, Rule 6 must not be ambiguous but should be clear that the sum of money was due to the plaintiff and an admission which was insufficient for an order under Order 12, Rule 6 is also Insufficient for an order under Order 39, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. The scope of Order 39, Rule 10 is admittedly narrower than that of Order 12, Rule 6. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the admission for the purpose of Rule 10 of Order 39 should be clear, unambiguous unqualified and certain. In the present case, far from being an admission, the pleading and the replies to the application filed by the appellants only indicate that the alleged hypothecations have been specifically denied. That being so, the lower Court was not right in acting upon the alleged hypothecation bonds only because they bear the signatures of the appellants/defendants. The order of the lower Court in all the three appeals, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balkrishna Agrawal And Anr. vs Central Bank Of India And Anr. on 17 August, 1983