Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Padmavati Art And Creation Pvt. Ltd vs Bhagwati Prasad Bang on 15 October, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:45009]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 37/2025
Padmavati Art And Creation Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Director Rishab
Daga S/o Vallabh Chand Daga Age -57, Having Its Office At 104
Olympic Complex Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhagwati Prasad Bang S/o Shri Amrit Lal Ji Bang, R/o
Amratam Near Bsnl Office Manji Ki Hatha Jodhpur
2. Shiv Kanya W/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Ji Dhoot, R/o
Opposite Khetsingh Ji Bunglow Nimbaheda House Paota
Jodhpur
3. Shri Vishnu S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Ji Dhoot, R/o
Oppoiste Khetsingh Ji Bunglow Nimbaheda House Paota
Jodhpur
4. Kishan Lal Dhoot S/o Shri Kashi Ram Ji Dhoot, R/o Plot
No 18 First Polo Shree Ram Bhawan Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Mehta
Mr. Hemant Kumar Ballani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
Mr. Hamendra Singh
Mr. Sidharth Mewara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
Order Pronounced On : 15/10/2025
Order Reserved On : 16/09/2025
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 08:24:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (2 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present civil revision petition has been preferred under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the outset, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
moved by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 76
days in filing the instant revision petition.
2. It is submitted that the delay occurred on account of a
communication lapse, as the petitioner was under the bona
fide belief that the pending revision petition No. 57/2024,
arising out of the earlier order dated 16.11.2023, also
encompassed the subsequent order dated 14.08.2024
passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Owing to this
misunderstanding, the present revision petition could not be
filed within the prescribed limitation period.
3. Having considered the contents of the application and the
reasons furnished therein, and being satisfied that the delay
was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the
aforementioned circumstances, the application is allowed.
The delay of 76 days in filing the revision petition is hereby
condoned.
4. Accordingly, the revision petition is treated as having been
filed within limitation.
5. Now, turning to the merits of the matter, this revision
petition challenges the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (3 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
Metropolitan, in Original Suit No. 48/2012 (Bhagwati Prasad
Bang vs. Shiv Kanya & Ors.), whereby the petitioner's
application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC has been
rejected.
6. The facts leading to the present revision petition, in brief, are
that the respondent no. 1-plaintiff, Bhagwati Prasad Bang,
instituted a civil suit for specific performance of a
compromise agreement and permanent injunction against
the petitioner company, seeking a direction to execute a sale
deed in his favour for 1600 square yards of land and also
seeking injunction against the petitioner. The case of the
plaintiff was founded upon an alleged compromise
agreement purportedly executed by one Shri Ramnarayan
Dhoot, who was claimed to have acted as the authorized
agent and power of attorney holder of the petitioner
company. It was averred that Shri Dhoot had agreed on
behalf of the petitioner to execute the sale deed and to pay
Rs. 3 crores to the plaintiff, and in this regard, cheques were
issued as security, out of which one cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs
was allegedly encashed. The plaintiff claimed that despite
repeated requests and reminders, the sale deed was not
executed, and after the death of Shri Dhoot, the petitioner
company declined to honour the alleged compromise. The
petitioner, in its written statement and counterclaim, denied
execution of any such compromise or agreement, asserting
that Ramnarayan Dhoot was neither a director nor
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (4 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
authorized by any board resolution or power of attorney of
the company, and that the plaint was based on vague,
fabricated assertions creating an illusion of cause of action.
The petitioner also claimed that the plaintiff, being a
chartered accountant, had obtained the cheques fraudulently
and was attempting to misuse them to extract money.
Consequently, the petitioner sought rejection of the plaint
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action and
also filed a counterclaim for refund of Rs. 1.40 crores.
7. While the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was
pending, the petitioner filed another application under Order
12 Rule 6 CPC on the basis of alleged clear admissions made
by the plaintiff in separate proceedings under Section 138 of
the NI Act against respondent no. 4, Kishan Chand Dhoot,
wherein the plaintiff had admitted that there was no
agreement with the petitioner company and that he had
neither seen any power of attorney nor any board resolution
authorizing Shri Dhoot to act on behalf of the petitioner. The
petitioner contended that these admissions were sufficient to
dispose of the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The plaintiff,
however, opposed the application, contending that the
statements given in criminal proceedings could not be
treated as unambiguous admissions in civil proceedings and
that such evidence could not be the sole basis for deciding
the civil suit. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, held
that although no authorization or power of attorney in favour
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (5 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
of Ramnarayan Dhoot was available on record, the issue
could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory
stage, as the alleged compromise itself described him as an
authorized agent and there were references to payment
transactions. The Trial Court further observed that the
statements made in criminal proceedings did not constitute
clear, unconditional admissions sufficient for judgment under
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and therefore rejected the application
vide order dated 14.08.2024. Aggrieved by this order, the
petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition
under Section 115 CPC.
8. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
9. This Court has also carefully perused the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel for the parties, including
Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 1; Satish
Kumar v. Karan Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4145 of
1984; and Sambhajirao v. Vimlesh Kumari
Kulshrestha, First Appeal No. 159 of 1999. However, the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions is not attracted to the present
case at this interlocutory stage. The issue presently before
this Court is confined to the applicability of Order XII Rule 6
CPC, i.e., whether certain statements made in separate
criminal proceedings constitute clear and unequivocal
admissions warranting judgment on admission. The question
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (6 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
of validity or enforceability of the alleged compromise
agreement is a matter to be examined at trial on the basis of
evidence. Hence, while the cited precedents correctly
enunciate the principles governing suits for specific
performance, they do not bear direct relevance to the narrow
controversy involved in this revision petition.
10. Upon a comprehensive and meticulous consideration of
the pleadings, the material placed on record, and the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of both parties, this Court
finds that the principal controversy revolves around the
precise legal ambit of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, "CPC"). More specifically, the
core issue is whether the statements allegedly made by the
plaintiff in independent criminal proceedings either pending
or disposed of at different court under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act could, in law, be treated as
"clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous admissions" within the
meaning of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, so as to justify the
pronouncement of judgment on admission and the
consequent summary dismissal of the suit for specific
performance and injunction.
The Legal Framework of Admissions under Order XII
CPC
Order XII Rule 6 CPC:
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (7 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
11.For ready reference and deeper analysis, Order XII Rule 6
CPC provides:
6. 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.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree
shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall
bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
12.It is a well-settled proposition of law that the power
conferred upon the Court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
discretionary in nature and must be exercised with great
circumspection and caution. The fundamental object
underlying this salutary provision is to enable a court to
pronounce judgment based on admissions that are so
unequivocal, unambiguous, unconditional, and express that
they render any further detailed adjudication in the matter
wholly unnecessary and superfluous. This power, being in the
nature of an exceptional measure for summary disposal,
cannot be invoked where the alleged admissions are in any
manner doubtful, qualified, or susceptible to multiple
interpretations. The expression "admission" under this Rule
presupposes a conscious, deliberate, and explicit
acknowledgment by one party of the truth of the case or a
fact asserted by the other party. The Court, before invoking
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (8 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
this stringent provision, must be satisfied beyond cavil that
the admission is of a conclusive nature and does not hinge
upon the proof or disproof of any other collateral fact in issue.
The Interplay with Order XII Rules 4 and 5 CPC
13.The scope of the term "otherwise" in Order XII Rule 6(1)
must be strictly construed and understood in the context of
the related provisions of the same Order, particularly Rules
3A, 4 and 5, which provide a clear mechanism for eliciting
formal admissions.
For ready reference and deeper analysis, Order XII Rule 4
and 5 CPC provides
Rule 4. Notice to admit facts.- Any party, may, by notice in writing, at
any time not later than nine days before the day fixed for the hearing,
call on any other party to admit, for the purposes of the suit only, any
specific fact or facts, mentioned in such notice. And in case of refusal or
neglect to admit the same within six days after service of such notice, or
within such further time as may be allowed by the Court, the costs of
proving such fact or facts shall be paid by the party so neglecting or
refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court
otherwise directs:
Provided that any admission made in pursuance of such notice is to be
deemed to be made only for the purposes of the particular suit, and not
as an admission to be used against the party on any other occasion or in
favour of any person other than the party giving the notice.
Rule 5. Form of admissions. - A notice to admit facts shall be in Form
No. 10 in Appendix C, and admission of facts shall be in Form No. 11 in
Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (9 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
14.It is expedient to note that Forms 10 and 11 are prescribed
in the Code itself (Appendix C), which are reproduced herein
for ready reference.
NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS
(O. 12, r. 5.)
(Title as in No. 1, supra)
Take notice that the plaintiff [or defendant] in this suit requires the
defendant [or plaintiff] to admit, for the purposes of this suit only, the
several facts respectively hereunder specified; and the defendant [or
plaintiff] is hereby required, within six days from the service of this
notice, to admit the said several facts, saving all just exceptions to the
admissibility of such facts as evidence in this suit.
G.H. pleader [or agent] for plaintiff [or defendant].
To E.F., pleader [or agent] for defendant [or plaintiff].
The facts, the admission of which is required, are--
1. That M. died on the 1st January, 1890.
2. That he died intestate.
3. That N. was his only lawful son.
4. That O. died on the 1st April, 1896.
5. That O. was never married.
ADMISSION OF FACTS PURSUANT TO NOTICE
(O. 12, r. 5.)
(Title as in No. 1, supra)
The defendant [or plaintiff] in this suit, for the purposes of this suit only,
hereby admits the several facts respectively hereunder specified, subject
to the qualifications or limitations, if any, hereunder specified, saving all
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (10 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
just exceptions to the admissibility of any such facts, or any of them, as
evidence in this suit:
Provided that this admission is made for the purposes of this suit only,
and is not an admission to be used against the defendant [or plaintiff]
on any other occasion or by any one other than the plaintiff [or
defendant, or party requiring the admission].
E. F., pleader [or agent] for defendant [or plaintiff].
To G. H., pleader [or agent] for plaintiff [or defendant].
Facts admitted Qualifications or limitations, if any,
subject to which they are admitted
1. That M. died on the 1st 1.................................................
January, 1890.............................
2.That he died 2................................................
intestate..........................................
3. That N. was his lawful son 3. But not that he was his only
................... lawful son.
4. That O. died................................. 4. But not that he died on the 1st
April, 1896.
5.That O. was never 5.................................................
.............
married...............
15.From a perusal of Rules 4 and 5 of Order XII, it is manifest
that a notice under Rule 4 must strictly conform to the format
prescribed in Form No. 10, and any admission in response
must correspond to Form No. 11. The procedural protocol is
explicit: the notice must be served not later than nine days
before the date fixed for hearing, and the admission must be
furnished within six days from the receipt of such notice.
Non-compliance with this protocol renders the purported
admission incapable of being treated as an admission under
Order XII CPC.
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (11 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
16.It is further evident that in the context of this provision,
whether it's in accordance with rule 2, 3A or 4, the notice is
to be given or the court would ask under rule 3A for making
admission pertaining exclusively to the pleadings and
documents of that particular suit. Consequently, any
admission allegedly made by a party to the suit at any other
forum of judicial proceeding cannot, by itself, be treated as
operative or binding on the party to the suit. The protocol
clearly underscores that such admissions are for the purpose
of the particular suit alone and cannot be extrapolated to
proceedings in a different forum, thereby preserving the
sanctity and specificity of the trial process.
17.The structured scheme of Order XII contemplates admissions
of fact arising from three primary sources for the purpose of
a summary decree:
• Admissions in the pleadings.
• Formal admissions elicited in response to a Notice to Admit
Facts (Form No. 10, Appendix C) leading to an Admission of
Facts (Form No. 11, Appendix C).
• Admissions made before the Court in the same proceeding,
whether oral or written (e.g., in a statement recorded by the
Court or by way of a written application).
18.The term 'otherwise' in Rule 6, when interpreted ejusdem
generis with other forms of admission, such as those made
through an application containing an express admission, or by
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (12 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
directly commenting on a document whether it is admitted or
denied and appending one's signature is often understood to
encompass formal admissions made through the mechanisms
provided in Rules 3A and 4, or other admissions made
directly to the Court in the course of the suit. If the term
"otherwise" were to be construed loosely or expansively, it
would open a floodgate of litigation, allowing any party to
claim that the opposite party, at some unspecified point in
time, had admitted a fact before another court/tribunal in a
distinct proceeding, before a third person or in some
peripheral document, and on the strength of such an
unproved or extrajudicial admission, would seek a summary
decree. This cannot be the legal intendment, and if allowed
would open a new and unintended avenue not contemplated
by the framers of the law. An alleged oral or documentary
admission, not forming part of the formal mechanism
provided by Rules 3A, 4 and 5 or the pleadings, must, at the
very least, be duly proved as evidence in accordance with the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and satisfy the rigorous test of
conclusiveness before it can become the bedrock for a decree
under Order XII Rule 6. It is pertinent to note that while
Order XII is procedural in nature, it incorporates, by
reference, certain foundational principles of the Evidence Act.
Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which provides that "facts
admitted need not be proved," underlies the rationale of
summary adjudication based on admission. However, the law
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (13 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
does not intend that a statement or fact, once disputed by a
party, can nevertheless be treated as an admission for the
purposes of passing a decree. Where a fact is
disputed/objected/controverted, its truth or falsity can only
be conclusively determined after trial. The procedural
mechanism, therefore, safeguards against prematurely
treating disputed statements or alleged admissions as
binding, ensuring that the civil process is not stifled on the
basis of contested assertions.
19.Specifically, sub rule (2) of Rule 6 clearly stipulates that the
decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment,
which, by necessity, must rest upon the facts expressly
admitted by the opposite party, either in the pleadings or in
the reply to the notice to admit facts (Form No. 11, Appendix
C) or otherwise through express admission. The Court is
therefore duty-bound to ensure that these conditions are
strictly fulfilled before passing a summary judgment.
20. In the present case, the petitioner sought to invoke the
summary jurisdiction of this Court under Order XII Rule 6
CPC by relying upon certain statements purportedly made by
the plaintiff in independent criminal proceedings before a
criminal court relating to the dishonour of cheques. The
petitioner avers that the plaintiff therein allegedly stated that
there was no agreement with the petitioner company and
that he had not seen any power of attorney or board
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (14 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
resolution authorizing the representative to act on behalf of
the petitioner.
21.Such statements, may be; if isolated and read de hors their
context, appear to cast a shadow of doubt upon the existence
of the privity of contract central to the civil suit when the
evidence is made to appreciation in trial. Nonetheless, a
critical legal inquiry pertains to the nature, context, and
evidentiary status of such statements within the framework of
the civil suit and Order XII Rule 6 CPC would require. It must
be borne in mind that where the party whose statement is
relied upon disputes the alleged admission and seeks to
explain the attendant circumstances or the reasons behind
such statement, the same can only be examined and
evaluated during the course of a trial. Whether under Section
58 of the Evidence Act or Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the essence
of an admission lies in the unequivocal acceptance of a fact,
document, or pleading as asserted by the opposite party. If
there exists an objection, denial, or a plea of explanation by
the party purportedly making the admission, the statement
cannot be treated as an admission in law sufficient enough to
pass a decree under this provision . Such disputed assertions
may, at best, constitute matters for adjudication at trial,
where the party may even establish that the earlier
statement was made under a mistaken or different
understanding of facts. At the nascent stage of the
proceedings, however, such controverted statements cannot
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (15 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
be treated as clear or unambiguous admissions justifying the
invocation of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
22.This Court is of the view that the expression "otherwise" in
Rule 6 cannot be stretched ad infinitum to include statements
made in independent criminal proceedings before a different
forum. Such statements are neither part of the pleadings in
the present suit nor have they been formally admitted by the
plaintiff in response to a Notice to Admit Facts (Form No.
10/11) in the manner prescribed by the CPC. A document or
statement recorded in another proceeding, unless duly
exhibited and proved as admissible evidence during the trial
of the civil suit in accordance with the law of evidence, cannot
ipso facto constitute an admission that is conclusive and
dispensatory of the requirement of proof under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC. Such material may certainly constitute a "piece
of evidence" or a "relevant circumstance" to be meticulously
tested during the course of a full-fledged trial, but it
possesses neither the conclusive character nor the formality
requisite for a definitive admission warranting a summary
decree.
23.The learned Trial Court, therefore, made a legally sound
observation when it noted that the few extracted lines from
testimony in a criminal proceeding cannot, by any stretch of
judicial interpretation, be treated as a definitive, unqualified
acknowledgment of the plaintiff's lack of a cause of action,
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (16 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
especially when the overall dispute involves complex factual
and legal questions relating to authorization, agency, and
financial transactions which require the full compass of a trial.
24.This Court concurs with the finding that the statements
relied upon by the petitioner do not qualify as the clear,
unqualified, and unambiguous admissions contemplated
within the strict legal meaning of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. These
statements, being neither part of the pleadings nor expressly
admitted by the plaintiff in the current proceedings in
accordance with the prescribed procedure, cannot form the
sole basis for the summary dismissal of the suit.
25.Accordingly, it is held that the learned Trial Court, by its
reasoned order dated 14.08.2024, has rightly concluded that
the suit for specific performance and injunction cannot be
dismissed merely on the strength of the plaintiff's statements
recorded in a separate criminal proceeding. The principle that
unless an admission is categorical, express, and
unconditional, it cannot justify a judgment under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC is correctly enunciated in the impugned order. The
said order, therefore, suffers from no legal infirmity and the
matter is mandatorily required to proceed to trial, where the
evidentiary value and probative force of all such statements
and documents may be meticulously tested and evaluated in
accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45009] (17 of 17) [CR-37/2025]
26. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby
dismissed.
27. Pending applications , if any are also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
245-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 06:05:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
