The Supreme Court of India has recently provided significant clarity regarding Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), establishing that a judgment on admission can be passed at any stage of the suit, even if the admissions are made outside the pleadings and are not formalized through an application.
This ruling highlights the flexibility of the rule, allowing courts to issue judgments based on admissions made by either party during the proceedings, whether orally or in writing, and regardless of whether these admissions are part of the official pleadings or not.
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is designed to speed up the legal process by allowing courts to pass judgments on admissions made by the parties involved in a case. The 1976 Amendment to this rule clarified that admissions could be in any form—whether written or oral. The rule allows the court to issue a judgment even without waiting for the resolution of other contested issues.
Order XII Rule 6(1) of the CPC grants the court the authority to make a judgment upon the admissions made by the parties without waiting for the determination of all questions. Rule 6(2) further clarifies that a decree shall be drawn up in line with the judgment passed on such admissions.
The language used in the original rule was more restrictive, mentioning that admissions should only come from pleadings. However, the 1976 amendment made it clear that oral admissions and admissions made "otherwise" (i.e., outside pleadings) could also form the basis for such judgments.
The Court emphasized that a judgment could be passed even when the admission was made outside the pleadings. This includes statements made by a party during court hearings or in written statements that directly admit facts, as established in the Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India and ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son cases.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Arbitrator Can Permit Withdrawal of Claims If No Prejudice Is Caused to Opposing Party
One of the crucial points made by the Court was that oral statements made by the parties in court, under oath, can be considered as admissions. The Court highlighted that such admissions could be used as conclusive evidence, allowing the judge to pass a judgment on them.
The Delhi High Court also supported this interpretation, ruling that admissions made in statements recorded during court proceedings can be utilized for judgments without waiting for full trial proceedings.
The Court also discussed the discretionary nature of Order XII Rule 6. A party does not need to formally apply for judgment based on admissions. Courts have the power to exercise this authority suo-motu (on their own motion), meaning they can act without the need for an explicit application from either party.
This principle was recognized by the Law Commission of India, which praised the flexibility and efficiency of the 1976 amendment in reducing unnecessary delays in litigation.
Case Analysis: Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal
In the case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, the Supreme Court upheld a decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 based on admissions made in the written statement by the defendant. The facts of the case revealed that the defendant admitted several key points in his written statement, including that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the property, and the tenant's rights had expired.
Despite the defendant's objections, the trial court passed a decree for eviction based on these admissions, and the High Court upheld this ruling, affirming that the defendant's failure to challenge the admitted facts meant there was no need for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the findings, explaining that the judgment on admission had been rightly passed under the CPC, noting that no further evidence was required to resolve the matter, as the admissions were conclusive.
Case Title: Rajiv Ghosh Versus Satya Naryan Jaiswal
Appearance:
Mr. Ramnath Jha, Adv. appeared for the Petitioner
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. appeared for the defendant.
