This article is written by Gautam Badlani, a student at Chanakya National Law University, Patna. This article examines the provisions and judicial decisions relating to Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This article also highlights the evidentiary value of admissions in reference to the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction

The principle of admission originated in the common law system and has been incorporated in the civil as well as criminal limb of the Indian judicial system. Admissions lead to the minimisation of litigation and speedy disposal of cases. It ensures fast, simple and inexpensive justice. The Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter CPC) also incorporates this principle and confers discretionary power on the Court to pass a decree based on the admissions made by the parties. 

Order 12 Rule 6 plays a significant role in minimizing litigation and enabling speedy justice. This article points out the pivotal role played by this provision in enabling the courts to make orders and pass judgments based on admissions. In a recent landmark judgement of Karan Kapoor vs Madhuri Kumar (2022), the Court held that by virtue of this provision, the courts can pass a judgement based on clear and categorical admissions by the parties. 

Evidentiary value of admission 

CPC does not define the expression “admission”. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admission as a statement made in the oral, documentary or electronic form suggesting an inference to a fact-in-issue or relevant fact. 

It is pertinent to note here that Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act lists the circumstances under which an admission will not be relevant in civil cases. The Section provides that if an admission is based upon an express condition that evidence of such admission shall not be given or where the admission is arising out of such circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties had agreed not to give evidence of it, the admission will not be relevant in civil cases.  

Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that where a fact has been admitted by the parties or their agents, there would be no requirement to prove such facts. However, the proviso to the Section states that the Court has a discretionary power to require such admitted facts to be proven by means other than such admission. 

Thus, a fact admitted by the parties need not be proved and the court can presume such facts to be true. The only case where a fact would not be relevant in civil cases is where the parties had expressly or impliedly agreed that evidence of such fact shall not be given. It is pertinent to note here that where the parties have admitted any fact, they cannot be permitted to deny it at a later stage. In the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India (2006), it was held that once the workmen had admitted that they worked for a contractor, they cannot alter their stand at a later stage.

Order 12 CPC

Order 12 of CPC deals with admissions. Rule 1 provides that a party can admit the case of the other party, entirely or partially, by giving a notice. The notice should be in writing. 

Under Rule 2, a party may issue a notice to the other party to admit or refuse to admit any document. The opposite party has to admit the document within 7 days of the service of notice. If the party on whom the notice is served refuses or neglects to admit the document, the onus of bearing the cost of proving the document will be on the refusing or neglecting party.  

If a notice of admission has been issued by one party and the other party does not specifically deny the document or does not admit it in his pleading or reply, it will be deemed that the document has been admitted. The only exception is where the opposite party is a disabled person. 

Order 12 Rule 3A confers the power on the court to call upon any party to admit a document and to record the admission or denial of the party. 

The proviso to Rule 4 clarifies that admissions made by virtue of a notice under a particular proceeding cannot be used against the party making the admission in any other proceedings relating to any other suit. 

However, where a party issues a notice to admit such documents which are not necessary, the costs arising out of such notice will be borne by the party giving the notice. 

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC

Under Order 12 Rule 6, the Courts have the power to make a judgement in regards to any oral or written admission made by the parties at any stage of the proceedings. Such admission may be made in the pleading or otherwise. 

In the case of Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd v. Unied Bank Of India & Ors (2000), the Apex Court had observed that under Order 12, Rule 6, the Court has the jurisdiction to pass a judgment in the favour of the plaintiff on the basis of an admitted claim. However, it is pertinent to note, that the scope of this provision cannot be limited to such a degree that the plaintiff becomes entitled to claim a favorable decree on the basis of a plain admission by the defendant. 

It is pertinent to note here that the Rule provides that the court “may” pass a judgement or order based on the admission. Thus, it is clear that the legislative intent is to confer a discretionary power on the Court and judgement based on admission cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The legislative intent is further clarified by the proviso to Order 8, Rule 5. The proviso provides that even where a fact has been admitted by an admission, the Court has discretionary power to require the admitted fact to be proved by any other means. 

Landmark judgments

Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar (2022)

In the landmark case of Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar (2022), the two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court explained the legislative intent behind introducing the provision of Order 12 Rule 6. 

Facts

• The appellant in this case was a tenant on the property of the respondent. The two entered into a lease agreement for a period of 24 months which was further extended for a period of 11 months. However, the tenant continued to keep the occupation of the premises even after the expiry of the term of the extended lease agreement. 
• Subsequently, legal proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The appellant contended in his written statement that after the expiry of the term of the extended lease agreement, the respondent had approached him and made an offer for the sale of the title of his property. The sale agreement was subsequently executed between the parties and it was agreed that the outstanding accrued rent would be adjusted in the sale agreement. 
• The respondent then filed an application under Order 12, Rule 6 and contended that while the defence taken by the appellant relating to the sale agreement was sham, he had admitted to the tenant-landlord relationship and the rate of rent. 
• The Trial Court relied on the admissions made by the appellant and granted a degree of specific performance in the favour of the respondent and directed the appellant to deliver the position of the concerned property to the respondent. This decision of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court and an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

• The appellant contended that the existence of a sale agreement between the parties was a triable issue and where the issues placed for the Trial Court are triable, the Court should not proceed with the passing of a decree under Order 12 Rule 6. 
• The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that where a judgment is passed on the basis of an admission, any remedy based on merits is permanently denied to the appellant.
• The respondent, on the other hand, contended that admissions made either in the pleadings or before the Court at the time of hearing of the case are admissible under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. That’s where the respondent has a prima facie case, the Court is empowered to issue a decree under Order 12 Rule 6. 

Judgement

• The Apex Court noted that the power under Order 12 Rule 6 should be exercised only where the admission of documents or facts is clear, unambiguous and categorical. 
• The legislative intent behind providing such a discretionary power to the Court was that where certain admissions are made by one party and the other party admits such admissions and where the court is satisfied with the nature of the admission, the court can pass a judgement or decree based on such admission.  
• The Court held that the defense taken by the opponent in the present case needed to be decided by a full-fledged trial. Whether the defence was plausible or not was a matter of trial and an opportunity to lead evidence must have been provided to the parties. 
• The admissions made in the present case were neither clear nor categorical and therefore the judgment of the Trial Court was liable to be set aside. 

Himani Alloys Ltd v. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011)

Facts

• In the case of Himani Alloys Ltd v. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011), the appellant had admitted the liability of a certain amount at a meeting held between the representatives of the appellant as well as the respondent. 
• The respondent had filed an application before the Court under Order 12 Rule 6 for passing a judgement based on the minutes of the meeting. 
• The single judge Bench of the High Court passed an order in favour of the respondent and an appeal to such order was subsequently dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the judgement before the Apex Court by means of a special leave petition. 

Judgment 

• The court held that a judgement can be based on the admission contained in the minutes of the meeting. 
• The only prerequisite is that the admission should be categorical in nature and the party should have deliberately and consciously made the admission with the intention of being bound by it. 
• However, in this case, the Court had allowed the appeal and had set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that the minutes of the meeting stated that the figures were only tentative and were to be verified by both the parties in the next meeting. 
• In such a scenario, the Court could not have regarded such discussion as an admission. 

Monika Tyagi & Ors. v. Subhash Tyagi @ Moolraj Tyagi

Facts

• In the case of Monika Tyagi & Ors. v. Subhash Tyagi @ Moolraj Tyagi (2021), the petitioners had filed a suit claiming mesne profits, recovery of possession and injunction, temporary as well as permanent, against the defendants. 
• The petitioners pleaded that despite repeated requests, the dependents had not vacated the suit premises and continued to enjoy illegal occupation of the concerned property. 
• Subsequently, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 12 Rule 6 claiming that the defendants had admitted in their written statement that they became the owner of the concerned property through adverse possession. 

Arguments 

• The petitioners contended that even though the defendants had stated in their written statement that they obtained the ownership of the concerned property through adverse possession, none of the essential ingredients required for obtaining adverse possession had been contended by them. 
• The defendants, on the other hand, contented that they had not admitted title to the property in the written statement. 
• The defendants submitted that the discretionary power of the Court under Order 12 Rule 6 can be exercised only where the admissions concerned are categorical and unequivocal. 
• As the admissions in the present case were not clear and concise, the Court could not exercise its discretionary power and the decree could be awarded in the favour of the plaintiff only on the appreciation of the evidence. 

Judgement 

• The Court relied on its earlier judgment of Rajeev Tandon v. Rashmi Tandon (2019) where a coordinate Bench had held that if the pleadings of the defendant do not disclose any material particulars and the pleas are vague and unsubstantiated, a decree under Order XII Rule 6 can be passed.
• The high court also referred to the case of P.P..A. Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Mangal Sain Mittal (2009) where it was held that where the defense is in the nature of moonshine, the suit should be some summarily dismissed by applying the provisions of Order XII Rule 6. 
• The Court came to a conclusion that when entertaining an application and the Order XII Rule 6, the Court should examine the essential averments of the written statement and determine whether the defence is in the nature of moonshine or not. 
• In the instant case, the defendants had not acquired the possession of the concerned property through wrongful dispossession of the owner. An essential ingredient to prove adverse possession, that is, the ingredient of hostile possession had not been pleaded by the defendants. No specific date of the commencement of adverse possession had been disclosed in the written statement. 
• Hence, the defence taken by the defendants was a complete moonshine and the application under Order 12 Rule 6 was allowed. 

Conclusion

Rule 6 confers a discretionary power on the court to pass a decree based on the admission made by the parties without determining any questions raised by the parties. However, the remedy under this Rule cannot be claimed as a matter of right as this provision is enabling and discretionary in nature. A judgement based on admissions can be passed at any stage of the proceedings. 

While decrees and orders based on admission lead to speedy justice and save the precious time of the court, the courts must give due regard to the fact that such orders are not based on the merits of the case and therefore this discretionary power must be exercised in a judicious conspicuous manner.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between admission and confession?

A confession is a statement made voluntarily by the accused person admitting his guilt. Admission, on the other hand, relates to the acknowledgement of the existence of a fact-in-issue or relevant fact. 

A conviction can be based solely on a confession but an admission cannot be a ground for conviction in itself and requires coraborative evidence. 

References

• https://www.drlawchambers.com/post/judgment-on-admission-a-forgotten-rule
• https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-order-xii-rule-6-cpc-judgment-on-admissions-discretionary-karan-kapoor-vs-madhuri-kumar-2022-livelaw-sc-567-203153 
• https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/civilrulescircularorders_0_0.pdf