court below should have seen that 5% of the value detained by the defendants would come to 8,85,060/-. It is also contended that there is an express admission of this amount in Ext.A32 as well as in the written statement. We have gone through the averments in Ext.A32 saying that an amount of 8,85,060/- less penalty amount for the delay was payable to the plaintiff firm, had the firm supplied barges as per the departmental specifications. As already seen above, the defendants are not entitled to recover any penalty from the plaintiff. However, the court below did not consider this admission as it militates against the arithmetical calculations. The principle in Section 58 of the Evidence Act is that a fact admitted need not be proved. However, it is equally clear that ervery admission can be explained. The court has power to direct a party to prove a fact de hors the admission by the other side. There is no material produced by the plaintiff to show that the amount of 8,85,060/- mentioned in Ext.A32 reflected a correct figure. The value of each barge determined in Ext.A5 was 26,82,000/-, excluding the sales tax and other dues. Therefore, the amount calculated by the court below in this head at `4,02,300/- is the correct value. As mentioned above, the plaintiff has not challenged this aspect in the appeal memorandum. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention raised by the plaintiff for enhancement of 5% value of the vessels cannot be accepted. Court below has already granted escalation value in respect of all the three vessels. Therefore, any increase in the 5%
