Ramesh Chandra Soni vs Kamal Kishore Soni
2025 Latest Caselaw 3847 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ramesh Chandra Soni vs Kamal Kishore Soni on 12 June, 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.680 of 2024

ORDER:

This Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

11.01.2024 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1165 of 2023 in O.S.No.109 of 2023.

2. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. It is

endorsed in the affidavit that respondent Nos.2 to 8 are not

necessary parties to this Revision Petition. Perused the entire

material available on record.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and respondent No.1

is plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case that are relevant for adjudication

of the present revision are that respondent No.1 filed a suit vide

O.S.No.109 of 2023 against the revision petitioner and respondent

Nos.2 to 8 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the

suit A and B schedule properties; and also to declare the registered

documents bearing Nos.203 of 2016, dated 24.10.2016, 2191 of

LNA, J

2018, dated 25.06.2018 and 2100 of 2009, dated 20.10.2009 and

Will deed dated 20.12.1994, as null and void.

5. The petitioner herein entered appearance and even before

filing the written statement, he filed an application vide

I.A.No.1165 of 2023 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 seeking dismissal of the suit, as the suit is barred

by limitation. In the affidavit, filed in support of the said

application, it is averred that the suit is filed basing on the Will

deed, dated 26.12.1994, which was allegedly executed by one

Bhawari Devi Soni in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of suit

schedule property; that the suit schedule property has chequered

history of litigation; that there are various legal proceedings in

respect of the suit schedule property pending since 2010 onwards

and that respondent No.1 is one of the contesting parties to the said

proceedings and as such, the limitation has to be computed from

the date of commencement of the original litigation and hence, the

present suit, filed in the year 2023, is barred by limitation and

hence, the same liable to be dismissed.

LNA, J

6. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit resisting the

application and contended that he filed I.A.No.197 of 2018 in

O.S.No.596 of 2010, seeking to implead him as party to the suit,

since he has interest over suit A and B schedule properties, as per

the terms of the Will deed executed by Bhawari Devi Soni,

however, the said application was dismissed on 27.12.2021,

directing to file a separate suit. Hence, respondent No.1 filed the

present suit and that the petitioner has no right or title to claim the

interest over the suit schedule properties and hence, the application

is liable to be dismissed.

7. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024

dismissed the application with an observation that in the light of

Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, the

admissions pleaded by the petitioner cannot be considered as

proved beyond doubt and duly proved and therefore, those are not

admissions. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial

Court decided the application without hearing another application

LNA, J

filed by the petitioner i.e., vide I.A.No.514 of 2023 filed under

Order XI Rule 6 of C.P.C. for answering the interrogatories. The

trial Court erred in appreciating the contents of I.A.No.197 of 2018

filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.596 of 2010, whereunder the

admissions made by respondent No.1 are not considered by the

trial Court and the said application was dismissed and therefore, the

trial Court ought to have allowed the application i.e., I.A.No.1165

of 2023 and finally, prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would

submit that as per Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C., the admissions made

by a party to the suit must be clear. He would further submit that in

the present case, there are several disputed questions of facts and

the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents, can be

decided only after full-fledged trial of the suit. He would further

submit that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and

therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed at threshold and hence, the

trial Court has rightly dismissed the application by duly

considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned

LNA, J

counsel would finally contend that no grounds are made out to

interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court.

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate

to refer to Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. which reads as under:

"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."

11. A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that the

Court may pass judgment at any stage on the admissions made by

the party, either orally or in writing, without waiting for

determination of any other question between the parties.

12. In the present case, the petitioner filed an application basing

on the admissions made by respondent No.1 in another suit, i.e.,

I.A.No.197 of 2018 filed in O.S.No.596 of 2010.

LNA, J

13. It is also appropriate to refer to Sections 17 and 21 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which read as hereunder:

"Section 17: Admission defined: An admission is a statement, ¹[oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

Section 21. Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf: Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative-in-interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative- in-interest, except in the following cases:

(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under Section 32.

(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.

(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

LNA, J

14. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

in Barath Singh and another v. Bhagarthi 1, wherein it is held that

the admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, but as per

Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, they are not

conclusive in nature. However, if the admissions are proved

beyond doubt and duly proved, then irrespective of the fact whether

the witness appeared in the witness box or not, the admissions are

considered admissible.

15. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment was reiterated

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwanath Prasad and Others

Vs. Dwarka Prasad and others2.

16. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid judgments and a conjoint reading of Sections

17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is manifest that the

admissions made by a party are not conclusive in nature, unless the

same are proved beyond doubt.

17. In the present case, the petitioner filed application only

basing on the purported admissions made by respondent No.1 in

AIR 1966 SC 405

(1974) 1 SCC 78

LNA, J

another proceedings, i.e., I.A.No.197 of 2018 in O.S.No.596 of

2010 and no other contentions were advanced by the petitioner for

dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation.

18. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent

No.1, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the same

can be proved only after detailed enquiry, therefore, the suit cannot

be dismissed at threshold without examining the pleadings and

contentions urged by the plaintiff in the suit.

19. In the light of the above discussion, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the Revision is devoid of merits and the

petitioner failed to point out any irregularity and illegality in the

impugned order and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. No costs.

20. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:12.06.2025 EDS/dr