Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said clarified that Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code empowers the court to pass judgment on an admitted claim at any stage of the proceedings.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that a plaintiff may seek a judgment based on the defendant's admission in their written statement, even if the defendant has raised a defense. Similarly, a defendant can move for the dismissal of the suit if the plaintiff admits a crucial fact in their rejoinder.

The court further explained that, in suitable cases, it may pass judgment at an interlocutory stage based on a party’s admission. However, if the case involves complex issues that cannot be resolved at the motion stage, the court may decide against issuing a judgment at that time.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 requires the court to draw up a decree in accordance with the judgment on admission. Sub-rule (2) is thus consequential and logical sequence to sub-rule (1). Since the object of sub-rule (1) is to enable the plaintiff to get judgment on admission of the defendant to the extent of such admission, he must get the benefit thereof immediately without waiting for the determination of “non-admitted claim”. Sub-rule (2) makes it imperative for the court to draw up a decree in terms of judgment on admission which can be executed by the plaintiff.” In such cases, there may be two decrees; (i) in respect of admitted claim; and (ii) in respect of “non-admitted” or contested claim, the court observed.  

The bench also said the decree under Rule 6 may be either preliminary or final.   

The court pointed out that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC deals with judgment on admissions. It stated 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.   

The court noted Rule 6, as originally enacted, enables a court to pronounce judgment or admission “either in pleading or otherwise”. Rule 6(1) empowered the court to pronounce a judgment upon admissions made by parties without waiting for the determination of other questions. 25. Rule 6(2) stated that a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.

The primary object underlying Rule 6 is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of admission. Where a plaintiff claims a particular relief or reliefs against a defendant and the defendant makes a plain admission, the former is entitled to the relief or reliefs admitted by the latter, the bench said, citing Uttam Singh Vs United Bank of India, (2000), court said.    

The provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary, and permissive. They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory. This is also clear from the use of the word “may” in the rule. The powers conferred on the court by this rule are untrammeled and cannot be crystallized into any rigid rule of universal application. They can be exercised keeping in view and having regard to the facts and varying circumstances of each case, the bench said.

"If the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided on the basis of admission, it may, in exercise of its discretion, refuse to pass a judgment and may insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts," the bench said. 

To make order or to pronounce judgment on admission is at the discretion of the court. First, the word “may” is used in Rule 6 and not the word “shall” which prima facie shows that the provision is an enabling one. Rule 6 of Order 12 must be read with Rule 5 of Order 8 which is identical to the Proviso to Section 58 of the Evidence Act. Reading all the relevant provisions together, it is manifest that the court is not bound to grant relief to the plaintiff only on the basis of admission of the defendant, the bench said, citing Sher Bahadur Vs Mohd Amin, (1929), the apex court opined. 

It pointed out the words “or otherwise” are wide enough to include all cases of admissions made in the pleadings or de hors the pleadings. Under Rule 6, as originally enacted, it was held that the words “or otherwise” without the words “in writing” used in Rule 1 showed that a judgment could be given upon oral or verbal admission also, it highlighted. 

The Amendment Act of 1976, however, made the position clear, stating that such admissions may be “in the pleading or otherwise” and “whether orally or in writing”. Thus, after the amendment in Rule 6, the admissions are not confined to Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order 6, but are of general application. Such admissions may be express or implied (constructive); may be in writing or oral; or may be before the institution of the suit, after the suit is brought or during the pendency of proceedings, the bench said.

The court was dealing with a petition filed by one Rajiv Ghosh against the Calcutta High Court's November 14, 2024 judgment which dismissed his plea against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Vth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, District Calcutta on December 2, 2023.

The appellant-defendant in his written statement admitted the claims of the plaintiff that his father Ranjan Ghosh was the sole tenant in respect of the suit property. The said Ranjan Ghosh passed away on July 13, 2016 leaving behind the defendant as his heir and legal representative and that the plaintiff was the owner of the scheduled property and the rent was paid till May 2021 to the plaintiff.  

In view of the admissions made by the defendant in his written statement, the plaintiff preferred an application before the trial court under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and prayed for a decree upon admission. The trial court adjudicated the application and ultimately decreed the suit having regard to the specific admissions made by the defendant.

The court noted that the plain reading of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 would indicate that the dependent heir of the original tenant unless she is the widow of the original tenant would be entitled to carry on as a tenant [coming within the definition of “tenant” as defined under Section 2(g)] in such capacity for a period of 5 years from the demise of the original tenant.    

In the case at hand, the defendant was the son of the original tenant. It was not in dispute that he claimed his right to continue as a tenant in the suit premises through his father i.e. the original tenant.  

"We are of the view having regard to the clear and unequivocal admission made by the defendant in his written statement, the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in decreeing the suit applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC," the bench said.

The petitioner's counsel contended he was not governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and therefore the entire discussion as regards Section 2(g) of the Act, 1997 was unnecessary. In such circumstances, he had a right to continue in occupation of the premises in question as the legal heir of the original tenant.  

"We are afraid, we are not impressed with the submission. We take notice of the fact that this point was never raised or argued before the High Court. We wonder if it was at all argued even before the trial court," the bench said.  

The court asked if, according to the petitioner, the provisions of the Act, 1997 were not applicable then what was the good reason for him to file the application under Sections 7(1) & (2) of the Act, 1997 respectively.   

The bench finally dismissed the petition and directed its Registry to circulate one copy each of the order to all the high courts and the high courts in turn would circulate the order in their respective district judiciary.

Case Title: Rajiv Ghosh Vs Satya Naryan Jaiswal