XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed Even Dehors Pleadings : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently clarified the legal position under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), holding that a 'judgment on admission' may be delivered at any stage of the suit, relying on oral or written admissions even those made outside the pleadings and without the need for a separate application to invoke the provision.

Order XII Rule 6(1) CPC empowers the court to pronounce a judgment upon admissions made by parties without waiting for the determination of other questions, and Rule 6(2) states that a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.

Order XII Rule 6 as enacted originally stated:

“Judgment on admissions.— Any party may, at any stage of a suit. where admissions of facts have been made, either on pleadings or otherwise, apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties and the Court may upon such application make such order or give such judgment, as the Court may think just.”

Order XII Rule 6 as it stands today after 1976 Amendment states:

“Judgment on admissions.—(1) 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.”

It is worthwhile to mention that Rule 6, as originally enacted i.e., before 1976 Amendment Act, it used the words “or otherwise” without using the words “in writing” showing that a judgment could be given upon oral or verbal admission but cannot be given based on admissions made in writing.

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 Court explained.

In this regard, the Court cited its precedent in Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120, and Delhi High Court's precedent in ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son, (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB), the Court clarified that it is not necessary that the judgment may be passed based on the admission made in the pleadings, rather the judgment could be passed at any stage dehors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court.

“The use of the expression 'otherwise' in the aforesaid context came to be interpreted by the (Delhi) High Court. Considering the expression the Court interpreted the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also dehors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties' statement is recorded under O. 10, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matters in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein.”, the court observed relying on Delhi High Court's precedent in ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son.

Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed By Court's By Exercising Their Suo-Moto Powers

Further, the court noted that a separate application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is not mandatory but directory and the court can suo-moto pass judgment on admission at any stage of the suit.

"It may be noted that under the present rule, a judgment on admission can be passed only on an application. According to a local amendment. the Court may, on the application of any party or of its own motion, make such order or give such judgment. This is a useful amendment, and should be adopted.", the Law Commission of India 54the Report states while mentioning the object and purpose of the 1976 amendment to Rule 6 Order XII CPC.

Circulation Of Order's Copy To District Courts

It is in this context, that the Court explained the law regarding the passing of judgment based on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and directed the Registry to circulate one copy each of this order to all the High Courts and the High Courts in turn shall circulate the order in their respective District judiciary. 

Background

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing the case concerning the interpretation of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act). 

It was the case where the petitioner's father was a tenant of the Respondent. Under the WBPT Act, the tenancy could continue up to five years post-death of the tenant. The Respondent served notice of eviction (2018) to the petitioner who continued as a tenant after the death of his father (2016).

Because the Petitioner didn't vacate the premises in 2021, the Respondent/plaintiff filed an eviction suit. In reply to the plaintiff's plaint, the petitioner/defendant had admitted certain facts in a written statement which negativized his claims.

Following this, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was preferred by the Plaintiff/respondent seeking judgment on admission without determining other issues.

The trial court allowed the application and ultimately decreed the suit having regard to the specific admissions made by the defendant.

Upon the High Court's approval to the trial court's findings prompted the defendant to approach the Supreme Court.

Affirming the impugned findings, the Court noted that the Court below committed no error in decreeing the suit applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

Case Title: Rajiv Ghosh Versus Satya Naryan Jaiswal

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

Mr. Ramnath Jha, Adv. appeared for the Petitioner

Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. appeared for the defendant.