Introduction:
The Supreme Court, in this case, interpreted Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, emphasizing that a judgment on admission can be passed even dehors (outside) the pleadings, and that such power can be exercised suo moto by the Court without a formal application.
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on admissions
- Order X Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Examination of parties
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner’s father was a tenant of the respondent. After his death in 2016, the petitioner continued in possession under the WBPT Act, which permits tenancy for five years post tenant’s death. Despite an eviction notice in 2018, the petitioner didn’t vacate the premises by 2021. The respondent filed an eviction suit. In his written statement, the petitioner made admissions that went against his own case. Based on these, the trial court passed a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which the High Court upheld. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether a judgment on admission can be passed outside the pleadings, including oral or written admissions made during proceedings.
- Whether a separate application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is mandatory for such judgment.
- Whether the trial court was right in decreeing the suit on the basis of admissions made by the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The admissions made were not sufficient or conclusive to warrant a judgment. The trial court should have examined other issues instead of decreeing the suit solely based on admissions. Contended that judgment should be based on pleadings only, not any statement made outside pleadings.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The petitioner had made clear admissions in his written statement and during proceedings. As per Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the court has the power to pronounce a judgment at any stage based on admissions. A formal application is not mandatory as courts can act suo moto. Relied on precedents, including Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India and ITDC v. Chander Pal Sood & Sons.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court clarified that Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits a judgment on admission based on facts admitted in pleadings or otherwise, including oral or written statements made during the case.
The phrase “or otherwise” includes statements made in documents or recorded in Court proceedings (e.g., under Order 10 Rules 1 & 2 CPC).
Admissions can be made before, during, or even after the institution of the suit. The Court emphasized that express or implied admissions—whether constructive, oral, or written—are all valid.
Also stated that a separate application is directory, not mandatory; Courts may exercise this power suo moto.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and High Court, confirming the eviction decree. Reiterated that a judgment on admission can be passed even dehors the pleadings. Directed the Registry to circulate a copy of this order to all High Courts for further circulation to the district judiciary.
