1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE First Appeal No.1334 of 2008 With Civil Application No.3529 of 2008 M/s.R.B.Industrial Construction & ors. Appellants Vs. M/s.Nucon Products Pvt.Ltd. & ors. Respondents Mr.Kedar Soman with Mr.Inderpal Singh Nirmale for appellants. Mr.Arvind Purohit for resp. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. July 7, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr. Soman, the learned counsel for the appellants who were Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit No.502 of 2004. The appellants are aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on 25/4/2008 in Special Civil Suit No.502 of 2004 by allowing the application filed at Exhibit 77. . The claim made by the present respondent no.1 - plaintiff was for the recovery of Rs.32,10,578=20 against the defendant nos.1 and 2. Admittedly the plaintiff was the sub-contractor of the defendant 2 nos.1 and 2 for doing some work for defendant no.3 and defendant nos.1 and 2 were the contractors of defendant no.3. In their Written Statement the defendant nos.1 and 2 in para 18 admitted the claim in the following words: "The Defendant submits that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are ready and willing to pay Rs.34,52,000/- to the Plaintiff as remaining dues as and when the said amount is received by them from the Defendant No.3 as per the provisions of Para 10 of the Acceptance letter. Till today these Defendants have not received full and final payment from the Defendant No.3 and hence till the payment from Defendant No.3 the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff." . On the face of the above stated admissions regarding the liability, the plaintiff moved an application at Exhibit 77 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and the said application has been allowed. The learned Judge of the trial Court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Bai Chanchal Vs. Syed Jalaluddin [AIR 1971 SC 1081] [AIR 1971 SC 1081] [AIR 1971 SC 1081], 3 Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India &ors. [AIR 2000 SC 2740] [AIR 2000 SC 2740] [AIR 2000 SC 2740] as well as the scheme of Section 17 of the Evidence Act and held that the admissions made in para 18 of the Written Statement as quoted hereinabove undoubtedly attract the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The said provision reads as under: "(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 motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions." . We are, therefore, satisfied that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application at Exhibit 77 and proceeded to pass the impugned decree. If the appellants - defendants have any plea of having not received the amount from the defendant no.3, that may be a plea which they may raise in the execution application. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4 . Civil Application No.3529 of 2008 does not survive and the same stands rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)