A defendant’s admission of outstanding dues in pleadings can sustain a recovery decree.

The respondent-contractor instituted a recovery suit for ₹7,43,777/- for various works executed for the appellants.

In their written statement, the appellants stated that ₹10.16 lakhs had been requisitioned for clearing the work claim, ₹2,72,600/- had been released in March 2020, and the balance amount of ₹7,43,777/- had been demanded under the relevant head for processing after site verification and compliance with due procedure.

During the proceedings, the statement of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division, R.S. Pura, was recorded; he stated that the amount had repeatedly been demanded from the Superintending Engineer but had not been released, and that it would be paid to the respondent upon release.

The trial court treated the pleadings and statement as establishing the appellants’ liability and decreed the suit.

The appellants preferred the present appeal, challenging the decree on the grounds of erroneous treatment of the statement as an admission, failure to frame issues, and failure to conduct a trial on limitation.

The High Court separately condoned the 166-day delay in filing the appeal.

Whether the trial court correctly treated the appellants’ written statement and the Executive Engineer’s statement as an admission of liability for ₹7,43,777/-.

Whether the trial court erred in decreeing the suit without framing issues and conducting a full-fledged trial, particularly in view of the limitation objection raised in the written statement.

Whether the appellants were entitled to interference with the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2025.

Clear and unequivocal admissions in pleadings, supported by the statement of an authorised departmental officer, may justify determination of liability without a full trial where no material factual dispute survives.

The Court also considered the statement recorded under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as described in the judgment, and relied upon the appellants’ own written statement acknowledging that ₹7,43,777/- had been demanded and was to be released after verification and compliance with due procedure.

The High Court found that the appellants’ written statement substantially acknowledged the outstanding amount and merely stated that its release was subject to verification and procedural compliance.

This position was reinforced by the Executive Engineer’s statement that the amount had been repeatedly demanded and would be paid once released by the department.

On that basis, the Court concluded that there were no material factual disputes requiring formulation of issues or a full trial, and that the appellants could not challenge the decree after having admitted the underlying liability in their pleadings and through their departmental officer.

The grounds relating to limitation and erroneous reliance on the statement were therefore rejected.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and the trial court’s judgment and decree dated 04.10.2025 were allowed to stand.

The decree sheet was directed to be prepared.

The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the 166-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.