Suits Can Be Dismissed Suo Motu Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC Based On Plaintiff's Admissions : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (May 6) ruled that under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, a court may not only pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour based on the defendant's admissions but may also dismiss a suit where the plaintiff's admissions undermine the claim.

Relying on the recent case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan affirmed that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC may be exercised by courts at any stage of the trial, including suo motu, without the need for a formal application.

The bench was hearing a case in which the appellant–plaintiff had made certain admissions that weakened its claim. Citing these admissions, the trial court, acting suo motu and without waiting for any formal application from the Respondent-defendant, dismissed the suit on the grounds of lack of cause of action and insufficient pleadings. The High Court upheld this dismissal, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the courts below had erred in invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC to dismiss the suit, asserting that such dismissal was permissible only under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It further contended that in the absence of any formal application by the defendant, the trial court lacked the authority to dismiss the suit suo motu.

Rejecting the Appellant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan observed:

“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. In the said judgment (Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal), it was also held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC, authorises the Court to not only pass a decree regarding admitted claim, but also to dismiss the suit.”

The Court highlighted that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is not limited to granting decrees in favour of plaintiffs but also enables dismissal of claims where judicial admissions by the plaintiff undermine the case.

Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed, and the impugned findings were upheld.

Case Title: SAROJ SALKAN VERSUS HUMA SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 538

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.