The Supreme Court has clarified that courts can dismiss suits on their own (suo motu) under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if the plaintiff's admissions weaken their own claim. This decision was made on May 6, with a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan, while relying on the case Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal.
Background of the Case
The case involved an appellant–plaintiff who made certain admissions that effectively weakened its own claim. Taking note of these admissions, the trial court dismissed the suit suo motu, without any formal application from the respondent-defendant. The court cited a lack of cause of action and insufficient pleadings as the basis for the dismissal. The High Court upheld this decision, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the dismissal under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was improper. They contended that such dismissal was only permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and claimed that, without a formal application by the defendant, the trial court had no authority to dismiss the suit suo motu.
Read also: 29 Supreme Court Collegium Recommendations for High Court Judges Pending with Central Government
Rejecting the appellant’s arguments, the Supreme Court emphasized the wide discretion granted to courts under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Justice Manmohan, who authored the judgment, clarified:
"Order XII Rule 6 CPC gives a very wide discretion to the Court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit and that too on its own motion, i.e., without any application being filed by any party."
The Court further noted that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is not limited to issuing decrees in favor of plaintiffs but also empowers courts to dismiss suits where the plaintiff's own admissions weaken the case. This means that even if the plaintiff's statements or evidence undercut their own claim, the court has the authority to dismiss the suit without waiting for a request from the opposing party.
Read also: Supreme Court Rejects 3-Judge Bench Demand for Death Penalty Appeals in Godhra Case
In line with its observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the trial court and the High Court. The judgment makes it clear that courts are not bound to wait for a formal application to dismiss a suit if the plaintiff’s admissions clearly negate their claim.
This ruling reinforces the principle that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is a tool for courts to ensure efficient case management, preventing unnecessary prolongation of cases where the plaintiff’s own admissions make their claim unsustainable.
Case Title: SAROJ SALKAN VERSUS HUMA SINGH & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Narendra Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Sen Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, AOR M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Kartikey Singh, Adv.
