MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, K. M.C. Versus AKBAR SHAH

Brief facts leading to this revision application are that somewhere in 1980 respondent No.l purchased in auction a commercial plot from Karachi Development Authority (K . D. A . ) and deposited the first installment of Rs.85,624. However, the respondent No.l did not find this plot fit for commercial purposes and therefore, moved for the return of his money. The K.D.A. agreed to return the amount after deducting 10 per cent from the said amount. In the meantime the area in which this plot was situated in Orangi Town was transferred from K . D . A. to K . M . C . alongwith the liabilities. The respondent No. 1 then approached the K. M. C. /applicant No.l for the return of his amount and it was agreed tht the amount will be returned to him by the K.M.C. after deducting 10 per cent from the said amount. However, neither K . M . C . nor K . D . A . made any payment to the respondent No.l, who, therefore, filed suit No.1655/1984 for the recovery of Rs .85,629 from the K.M.C. as well as K .D. A , The suit was decreed in the sum of Rs.76,500 by the learned Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West vide judgment dated 11‑8‑1985 ors the basis of admission in the written statement This decree was passed on the application of respondent No.l plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. r/w Section 151 C .P. C.

2. The appeal was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, West Karachi vide his order dated 4‑1‑1986. This revision application is directed against the aforesaid two judgments.

3. The only ground urged by Mr. S.M. Muslim Naqvi learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no unqualified admission in the written statement on the basis of which the Court could pass the decree. It is further urged that the amount, if any, was paid by the respondent No.l to the K.D.A. and such amount could not be recovered from the K.M.C.

4. I have gone through the plaint as well as the written statement filed by the Defendant /Respondent No.l. Most of the facts are not disputed. In pare. 15 of the plaint it is averred that the K.. M. C had accepted all the liabilities of Orangi Township alonwith the Transfer of Orani Towtasntp from :C.D.A. In pare. 16 it is further averred that the Defendant No,::, who is project Director Orangi Township K . M. C. , Karachi had intimated the plaintiff /respondent No. l vide his letter dated 4‑5‑1983 that the Mayor K . M . C . has accorded his approval for the refund of the said amount according to provisions of Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the auction. In pare. 4 of the written statement the applicant No.1l K.M.C. has admitted the contents of pares. 15 and 16 of the plaint. In pare. 5 of the written statement, besides admitting the contents of pare. 17 and 18 of the plaint, it is further stated by the applicant No.l that the K.M.C. had accorded approval for the refund of the amount deposited by the plaintiff after forfeiture of 10 per cent of the total bid amount and assumption of the plot as stipulated in pare of the terms and conditions of auction.

5. Admittedly the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff /respondent No.l after deducting 10 per cent of this amount. The only question that requires consideration by the Court is whether the aforesaid averments made by the applicant amount to admission of the claim of the plaintiff on which decree could have been passed by the learned Civil Judge. From bare reading of the aforementioned pares of the written statement, it would be clear that the K,M,C. admitted that it has accepted all the liabilities of Orangi Township alongwith the transfer of Orangi Township from K.D.A. to it. It was also admitted that they agreed to pay the amount deposited by the plaintiff to him after deducting 10 per cent. Word "admission" is not defined in ‑the C . P. C . but its ordinary meaning, according to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary is "an acknowledgement" and "an act of conceding". Bare reading of the aforesaid pares of the written statement will clearly show that the K..C. had conceded and acknowledged the claim of the plaintiff with the condition that they ere entitled to deduct 10 per cent from the said amount which condition was accepted by the plaintiff /respondent No.l, when he moved application for decree on the said admission of the applicant,

6. Mr. S. M. Muslim Naqvi learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Kassamali Alibhoy Shaikh Abdul SattBr (PLD 1966 (W .P, Kar.75) wherein it is held that "an admission in order to be made the basis of a decree under Order‑XII, rule‑6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 must be unqualified and unconditional". In the said case the defendant had admitted the execution of the Promissory Note, but had further pleaded that "it was without consideration and it was not intended to be used," tinder the circumstances the Court came to the opinion that it was not an unqualified admission.

7 . Mr. Syed Himayat Ali Pirzada learned counsel for the respondent No.l has relied upon the case of Sultan Wasi Jan v. Sultan Saeed Jan and others (1983 S C M R 1265). In that case their Lordships held that "ever. admissions made in the statement recorded under Order X, Rule 1., C.P. C. could be treated as conclusive for the purposes of the suit as they were on the same footing as pleadings in the case and the Court on the basis of such admission was competent to pronounce judgment under Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C.

8. Looking to the averments made by the applicant its the written statement, there can be no dispute that these are admissions of the claim of the plaintiff anti as such the Civil Court was quite competent B to pass decree under Order XI I, Rule 6, C .P. C . on the basis of such admissions against the applicant. No other point was urged by Mr. S.M. Muslim Naqvi learned counsel for the applicant. As such I find no merits in this revision application, which is dismissed with no order as to cost.

A . A . / M‑446/ K Revision dismissed.